Connect with us

Business

This teacher quit crowded classrooms to run her own microschool—now she’s earning over $100K and finally doesn’t have to work a summer job

Published

on



But for Apryl Shackelford, those anxieties have been replaced with opportunity. 

The 55-year-old is beginning her fourth year as the leader of Liberty City Primer, a private microschool in Miami. With just six classrooms and a few dozen students, Shackelford doesn’t have to navigate a politically charged school board or shifting state mandates. Instead, she can pour her energy into what she does best—teaching her first and second graders phonics, reading comprehension, and social skills.

Perhaps just as importantly, the change has given her something teachers in traditional schools often lack: financial security. As an independent school leader, Shackelford now makes $101,000 a year.

That’s a far cry from the $34,000 she brought home in her first year working at a public school in Jacksonville, Florida, in 2003. Even after shifting to the charter school system years later—where her salary rose to $50,000—it still wasn’t enough. Like many educators, she often worried about paying bills and would turn to side work during summer breaks, a discouraging reality considering teachers often act as de facto counselors, social workers, and guardians in addition to their teaching duties.

But with Primer, a venture-backed startup helping teachers establish their own microschools, Shackelford has been able to add the unexpected new title of entrepreneur to that list.

“Primer made me not just a teacher, but an entrepreneur. I’m building a legacy, not just running a school,” she told Fortune.

The organization takes care of the back-end logistics, from payroll and setting tuition to lobbying state legislators and navigating local zoning laws, freeing educators to concentrate on their craft. As a microschool founder, Shackelford shapes her school’s culture, including library selections, after-school activities, and community engagement strategies. 

Whenever Shackelford asks for items that were pipedreams in the public system, like certain furniture or books, Primer makes it happen, empowering her entrepreneurial visions to help students thrive.

“It’s never a ‘no,’” she said. “It’s ‘absolutely, we’ll get it there’, and that, by all means, that’s given us full access to everything. It’s my heaven on Earth.”

Education system frustrations brought an opening for microschools

The pandemic shined a relentless light on the deep struggles in the American education system. It’s one thing for a teacher to manage a roomful of energetic eight-year-olds, but during remote learning, it became a matter of overseeing two dozen Zoom screens, each with its own challenges and distractions. Suddenly, all bets were off.

This disruption fueled a crisis in teacher turnover and burnout, with one survey finding that nearly a quarter of all teachers were considering leaving or retiring because of COVID-19 lockdowns. Yet, it was also a wake-up call for families working from home about the rigid constraints of standardized public school learning. Many began seeking alternatives outside the traditional system, and policymakers—particularly in Republican-leaning states—intensified efforts to expand school choice programs.

In this atmosphere, microschools blossomed as a reinvention of the one-room schoolhouse that allowed one educator to teach a small group of students. 

Today, it is estimated that between 750,000 and 2 million students attend microschools full-time, with many more attending part-time. Nearly 40% of the schools use state-funded school choice programs, according to the National Microschooling Center. Florida, Arizona, and Indiana are among the states with the biggest growth. However, accessibility largely depends on policy, and tuition typically ranges from $5,000 to $10,000 a year.

According to Ryan Delk, the cofounder and CEO of Primer, microschooling is a return “to what we know has already worked, but with a twist: empowering these teachers as entrepreneurs, giving them incredible software that allows you to personalize learning experience for every kid.”

In fact, he argued massive public school systems represent a grand “experiment” that hasn’t met the mark over the last few decades of ensuring every student is equipped for success.

“This idea that you can put 5,000 kids into a school and have this extremely homogeneous education experience across every state and try to industrialize the whole process—I think that’s the experiment, and I think the verdict is out on that,” Delk said.

Nevertheless, the microschool model is not without criticism. Equity advocates warn that the expansion of microschools, especially those reliant on tuition or vouchers, could drain resources and diversity students from neighborhood public schools. Some researchers also point to major gaps in accountability. This past week, researchers from Rand concluded they were unable to comprehensively measure students’ academic performance in microschools.

From $12.50 an hour to embracing the changing tides

Across the education system, from pre-k to college, smaller class sizes have been a wish for students and teachers alike with numerous studies finding more individualized learning boosts test scores and attendance.

For educator LaKenya Mitchell-Grace, the shift away from personalized to standardized learning has done more harm than good.

“You basically are teaching to test. There’s no creativity; the only creativity that I could provide is how I presented the material,” she told Fortune. “And so I would sometimes have to rush students because we have pacing guides.”

The 47-year-old has spent the last 22 years teaching in Alabama schools, but Mitchell-Grace’s patience was wearing thin on the career she loved. At one private school, falling enrollment forced her to manage a combined fifth and sixth grade classroom for just $12.50 an hour.

After later returning to the public school system, she heard about the rise of microschools last December and immediately became interested. While shifting away from traditional education might seem scary, Mitchell-Grace compared it to how the world is changing with AI: you can either accept change or be left behind.

“We have to ensure that our children are in spaces and places where they can compete with one another that none feels left behind,” she said. “So I would ultimately say, give them an opportunity to feel seen, supported and challenged on the levels as other children who already have these tools available to them.”

Last month, Mitchell-Grace opened her own Primer microschool in Montgomery, Alabama, with about two dozen students ranging from kindergarten to eighth grade.

“It feels like the beginning of my career all over again,” Mitchell-Grace said speaking to Fortune the day before the first day of class.

“Primer gave me the chance not just to teach—but to lead,” she added. “I still can’t believe I’m saying it—I’m an entrepreneur now. I’m building something meaningful in my city.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

On Netflix’s earnings call, co-CEOs can’t quell fears about the Warner Bros. bid

Published

on



When it comes to creating irresistible storylines, Netflix, the home of Stranger Things and The Crown, is second to none. And as the streaming video giant delivered its quarterly earnings report on Tuesday, executives were in top storytelling form, pitching what they promise will be a smash hit: the acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery.

The company’s co-CEOs, Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, said the deal, which values Warner Brothers Discovery at $83 billion, will accelerate its own core streaming business while helping it expand into TV and the theatrical film business. 

“This is an exciting time in the business. Lots of innovation, lots of competition,” Sarandos enthused on Tuesday’s earnings conference call. Netflix has a history of successful transformation and of pivoting opportunistically, he reminded the audience: Once upon a time, its main business entailed mailing DVDs in red envelopes to customers’ homes. 

Despite Sarandos’ confident delivery, however, the pitch didn’t land with investors. The company’s stock, which was already down 15% since Netflix announced the deal in early December, sank another 4.9% in after-hours trading on Tuesday. 

Netflix’s financial results for the final quarter of 2025 were fine. The company beat EPS expectations by a penny, and said it now has 325 million paid subscribers and a worldwide total audience nearing 1 billion. Its 2026 revenue outlook, of between $50.7 billion and $51.7 billion, was right on target.  

Still, investors are worried that the Warner Bros. deal will force Netflix to compete outside its lane, causing management to lose focus. The fact that Netflix will temporarily halt its share buybacks in order to accumulate cash to help finance the deal, as it disclosed towards the bottom of Tuesday’s shareholder letter, probably didn’t help matters. 

And given that there’s a rival offer for Warner Bros from Paramount Skydance, it’s not unreasonable for investors to worry that Netflix may be forced into an expensive bidding war. (Even though Warner Brothers Discovery has accepted the Netflix offer over Paramount’s, no one believes the story is over—not even Netflix, which updated its $27.75 per share offer to all-cash, instead of stock and cash, hours earlier on Tuesday in order to provide WBD shareholders with “greater value certainty.”) 

Investors are wary; will regulators balk?

Warner Brothers investors are not the only audience that Netflix needs to win over. The deal must be blessed by antitrust regulators—a prospect whose outcome is harder to predict than ever in the Trump administration.

Sarandos and Peters laid out the case Tuesday for why they believe the deal will get through the regulatory process, framing the deal as a boon for American jobs.

“This is going to allow us to significantly expand our production capacity in the U.S. and to keep investing in original content in the long term, which means more opportunities for creative talent and more jobs,” Sarandos said.

Referring to Warner Brothers’ television and film businesses, he added that “these folks have extensive experience and expertise. We want them to stay on and run those businesses. We’re expanding content creation not collapsing it.”

It’s a compelling story. But the co-CEOs may have neglected to study the most important script of all when it comes to getting government approval in the current administration; they forgot to recite the Trump lines. 

The example has been set over the past 12 months by peers such as Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. The latter, with his company facing various federal regulatory threats, began publicly praising the Trump administration on an earnings call last January. 

And Nvidia’s Huang has already seen real dividends from a similar strategy. The chip company CEO has praised Trump repeatedly on earnings calls, in media interviews, and in conference keynote speeches, calling him “America’s unique advantage” in AI. Since then, the U.S. ban on selling Nvidia’s H200 AI chips to China has been rescinded. The praise may have been coincidental to the outcome, but it certainly didn’t hurt.

In contrast, the president went unmentioned on Tuesday’s call. How significant Netflix’s omission of a Trump call-out turns out to be remains to be seen; maybe it won’t matter at all. But it’s worth noting that its competitor for Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance, is helmed by David Ellison, an outspoken Trump supporter. 

It’s a storyline that Netflix should have seen coming, and itmay still send the company back to rewrite.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Americans are paying nearly all of the tariff burden as international exports die down, study finds

Published

on



After nearly a year of promises tariffs would boost the U.S. economy while other countries footed the bill, a new study shows almost all of the tariff burden is falling on American consumers. 

Americans are paying 96% of the costs of tariffs as prices for goods rise, according to research published Monday by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank. 

In April 2025 when President Donald Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs, he claimed: “For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.” But the report suggests tariffs have actually cost Americans more money.

Trump has long used tariffs as leverage in non-trade political disputes. Over the weekend, Trump renewed his trade war in Europe after Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland sent troops for training exercises in Greenland. The countries will be hit with a 10% tariff starting on Feb. 1 that is set to rise to 25% on June 1, if a deal for the U.S. to buy Greenland is not reached. 

On Monday, Trump threatened a 200% tariff on French wine, after French President Emmanuel Macron refused to join Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza, which has a $1 billion buy-in for permanent membership. 

“The claim that foreign countries pay these tariffs is a myth,” wrote Julian Hinz, research director at the Kiel Institute and an author of the study. “The data show the opposite: Americans are footing the bill.” 

The research shows export prices stayed the same, but the volume has collapsed. After imposing a 50% tariff on India in August, exports to the U.S. dropped 18% to 24%, compared to the European Union, Canada, and Australia. Exporters are redirecting sales to other markets, so they don’t need to cut sales or prices, according to the study.

“There is no such thing as foreigners transferring wealth to the U.S. in the form of tariffs,” Hinz told The Wall Street Journal

For the study, Hinz and his team analyzed more than 25 million shipment records between January 2024 through November 2025 that were worth nearly $4 trillion.They found exporters absorbed just 4% of the tariff burden and American importers are largely passing on the costs to consumers. 

Tariffs have increased customs revenue by $200 billion, but nearly all of that comes from American consumers. The study’s authors likened this to a consumption tax as wealth transfers from consumers and businesses to the U.S. Treasury.   

Trump has also repeatedly claimed tariffs would boost American manufacturing, butthe economy has shown declines in manufacturing jobs every month since April 2025, losing 60,000 manufacturing jobs between Liberation Day and November. 

The Supreme Court was expected to rule as soon as today on whether Trump’s use of emergency powers to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was legal. The court initially announced they planned to rule last week and gave no explanation for the delay. 

Although justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s authority during oral arguments in November, economists predict the Trump administration will find alternative ways to keep the tariffs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Selling America is a ‘dangerous bet,’ UBS CEO warns as markets panic

Published

on



Investors are “selling America” in spades Tuesday: The 10-year Treasury yield is at its highest point since August; the U.S. dollar slid; and the traditional safe-haven metal investments—gold and silver—surged once again to record highs.

The CEO of UBS Group, the world’s largest private bank, thinks this market is making a “dangerous bet.”

“Diversifying away from America is impossible,” UBS Group CEO Sergio Ermotti told Bloomberg in a television interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday. “Things can change rapidly, and the U.S. is the strongest economy in the world, the one who has the highest level of innovation right now.” 

The catalyst for the selloff was fresh escalation from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has threatened a 10% tariff on eight European allies—including Germany, France, and the U.K.—unless they cede to his demands to acquire Greenland.

Trump also threatened a 200% tariff on French wine and Champagne to pressure French President Emmanuel Macron to join his Board of Peace. Trump’s favorite “Mr. Tariff” is back, and bond investors are unhappy with the volatility.

But if investors keep getting caught up in the volatility of day-to-day politics and shun the U.S., they’ll miss the forest for the trees, Ermotti argued. While admitting the current environment is “bumpy,” he pointed to a statistic: Last year alone, the U.S. created 25 million new millionaires. For a wealth manager like UBS, that is 1,000 new millionaires a day. To shun that level of innovation in U.S. equities for gold would be a reactionary move that ignores the long-term innovation of the U.S. economy. 

“We see two big levers: First of all, wealth creation, GDP growth, innovation, and also more idiosyncratic to UBS is that we see potential for us to become more present, increase our market share,” Ermotti said. 

But if something doesn’t give in the standoff between the European Union and Trump, there could be potential further de-dollarization, this time, from Europe selling its U.S. bonds, George Saravelos, head of FX research at Deutsche Bank, wrote in a note Sunday. Indeed, on Tuesday, Danish pension funds sold $100 million in U.S. Treasuries, allegedly owing to “poor” U.S. finances, though the pension fund’s chief said of the debacle over Greenland: “Of course, that didn’t make it more difficult to take the decision.” 

Europe owns twice as many U.S. bonds and equities as the rest of the world combined. If the rest of Europe follows Denmark’s lead, that could be an $8 trillion market at risk, Saravelos argued. 

“In an environment where the geo-economic stability of the Western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part,” he wrote. 

Back in the U.S., the markets also sold off as the Nasdaq and S&P both fell 2% Tuesday, already shedding the entirety of Greenland’s value on Trump’s threats, University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers noted. Analysts and investors are uneasy, given the history of Trump declaring a stark tariff before negotiating with the country to take it down, also known as the “TACO”—Trump always chickens out—effect. Investors have been “burnt before by overreacting to tariff threats,” Jim Reid of Deutsche Bank noted. That’s a similar stance to the UBS bank chief: If you react too much to headlines, you’ll miss the great innovation that’s pushed the stock market to record highs for the past three years.

“I wouldn’t really bet against the U.S.,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.