She moved from Maryland to Morocco for a better life. She didn't expect to start a school in her home.
That's now her reality.
"I started with four kids out of my own house, and then I just started building a little school, and now it's been 13 years and I have this school that now has 60 to 65 students," Wilburn told Business Insider.
Wilburn said she worked at small religious schools in Maryland, and when she met her husband, who is from Morocco, she decided she wanted a change.
They moved to Morocco, and Wilburn found a teaching job. When the school shut down, she decided to start her own microschool, a model that typically has fewer than 20 students and focuses on personalized learning.
American Group International, Wilburn's school in Agadir, teaches students from kindergarten through 12th grade, and they come from diverse backgrounds, including the United Kingdom, Spain, and France.
"A lot of people are moving out of the first-world countries, and actually, the quality of life is better here," Wilburn said, adding that one thing she likes about Morocco is the availability of fresh food.
Plus, the couple thought the US was getting too expensive. She referred to her electric bill: she said that in America, she was paying around $400 a month for electricity, and her bill in Morocco is just $25.
Wilburn is one of many Americans who have left the US in search of a cheaper and better life. Her current role as a school leader is also representative of a growing movement in the US in which parents are seeking out alternative forms of education, like microschools, to best suit their children's needs.
While her school is now larger than the typical microschool, Wilburn said the structure has been instrumental to helping students in the region succeed.
"Our school's like family. They go home with their classmates, they have birthday parties together," Wilburn said. "It makes our school different than the bigger schools."
'Born out of a need'
BI previously spoke to microschool leaders and advocates in the US who vouched for the alternative learning style.Critics, on the other hand, worry that minimal regulation over microschools could diminish their accountability.
Mary Jo Fairhead, who runs a microschool in South Dakota, said that after working in a traditional public school for years, she saw a growing shift among parents who wanted more personalized educations for their kids, especially coming out of the pandemic.
"If a child's struggling and they need something more personalized, we find it for them," Fairhead said. "Or if they're excelling and they need something that's going to challenge them more, we find that for them."
Wilburn saw that same need for a different style of education in Morocco.
"Our school was born out of a need: a need for inclusive education, small class sizes, and alternative pathways for students with diverse learning profiles, special needs, or families seeking a more holistic, flexible, and international approach to learning," she said.
Wilburn obtained accreditation certificates for her school from two US-based agencies, and she said she is working to get regional accreditation to help expand her learning initiatives to other cities. She also partners with programs in the UK to provide English examinations and teacher training exams.
While educational standards and regulations differ by region, some education analysts have expressed concerns with minimal oversight over microschooling in the US. Paige Shoemaker DeMio, a senior analyst for K-12 education policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, previously told BI that most states do not have legal definitions for what constitutes a microschool, paving the way for potential misuse of funds and inability to track students' progress.
Ensuring success after students graduate is a priority, Wilburn said. Her school's curriculum includes bilingual English and Arabic instruction, and if her students want to go to college, she helps find them scholarships and placements.
"I had one boy, he came back here from Saudi Arabia. I took whatever he could give me to help him get through school," Wilburn said. "And now this year he graduated with a British diploma with his BA, and he's going to go back to Saudi Arabia and work with his friend to help them run a school there."
Have you moved from the US to a location abroad? How have you found the different education systems? Share your thoughts with this reporter at .
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Bernie Sanders says the middle class is shrinking. He's wrong.
In the recent Joe Rogan interview with Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont made a simple and empathetic argument: People today are angry because, decades ago, families had money to spare and didn't have to constantly worry about emergencies. Things have changed, he argued. The good old days are gone. Costs have ballooned and wages have stagnated. The middle class is shrinking. This is a common assertion, and an easy one to believe. We know people who are struggling financially, or we are struggling ourselves. Many prices are higher than they used to be. Many more households are dual income now than were in, say, the 1950s. It is easy to believe. It is also false. Many people do live paycheck to paycheck, but it is a shrinking — not growing — percentage of people. Let's do the boring work of reviewing the stats, shall we? In 1990, the median household spent $67,750 in 2023 dollars. By 2023, the median household was spending $77,280. This is a nearly $10,000 increase in expenditures over 35 years. That is total household expenditure, and it includes everything: healthcare, housing, education, food, clothing, gas, electronics, everything a house spends money on in a year. So expenses have increased, but have wages kept up? Yes. Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income went from $63,830 in 1990 to $80,610 in 2023. So real wages, after accounting for inflation, are up about $17,000 and expenses are only up about $10,000. Which is to say that wages have grown faster than expenses. In 1979, 13.4 percent of workers earned at or below the federal minimum wage, whereas today only 1.1 percent of workers earn at or below the federal minimum. Between 1963 and 2022, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty has been almost stagnant, fluctuating between 0.25 percent and 1.25 percent. And the general poverty rate has fallen. In 1990, 13.5 percent of Americans were living in poverty; in 2023, that number had fallen to 11.1 percent. Even the household-debt-to-GDP ratio has been steadily declining since 2011. You don't have to look at nap-inducing statistics to know that we are wealthier than our parents were. We have much more than they did — a larger selection of higher quality food, advanced technology, far more access to entertainment. More people travel, have gym memberships, go to college, have optional medical interventions (plastic surgeries, body fat scans, testosterone replacement therapy). More people own pets and spend more money on them. Houses are larger today and more likely to have central air and pools. The median lifespan has increased. This is not to say Sanders is wrong about everything. Some costs are rising — education and healthcare and housing are more expensive today than they used to be. It is also true that the gap between the rich and the middle class has grown. But the point here is, overall, wages have more than kept pace with rising costs. The middle class today is richer than the middle class ever was before. A more charitable view of the senator's message is that, even as households on the whole are making more money, they are only able to do it because both parents are working, whereas more households were single-income previously. Material wealth, by itself, does not fulfill people; though wages could have grown, many people are less happy. But Sanders's message these many decades has not been that people ought to focus more on traditional family values (having children, deep friendships, a relationship with God), nor has it been about avoiding toxic behaviors such as substance addiction or obsession with social media and video games. Sanders's message has not been that we ought to think less about material wealth and more about spiritual wealth or vibrant communities. His message has been that the middle class is getting poorer, so the wealthy need to give up their money so that the poor and middle class can have more of it. But if we convince ourselves, based on a falsehood, to redistribute more wealth, we may find that not only do we not solve the real issues causing social anger, we eradicate the progress we've already made in ensuring that more people have their needs met. Gabriel McKinney is a former teacher.
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
5 Books to Help You Build a Bigger Nest Egg—and Have a Successful Retirement
These are uncertain times for people saving for retirement. Volatile markets, higher healthcare costs and talks about cuts to government entitlements have investors worried as ever about the adequacy of their portfolios. As if that is not enough, many Americans say they are underprepared for retirement. Some 25% of adults with retirement savings say they have set aside one year or less of their current income for the future, according to research released in April from Northwestern Mutual.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Wrong and more wrong: How America's ‘experts' burned their last shreds of credibility
The first six months of the Trump administration have not been kind to the experts and the degree-holding classes. Almost daily during the tariff hysterias of March, we were told by university economists and most of the PhDs employed in investment and finance that the United States was headed toward a downward, if not recessionary, spiral. Most economists lectured that trade deficits did not really matter. Advertisement Or they insisted that the cures to reduce them were worse than the $1.1 trillion deficit itself. They reminded us that free, rather than fair, trade alone ensured prosperity. So, the result of Trump's foolhardy tariff talk would be an impending recession. Advertisement America would soon suffer rising joblessness, inflation — or rather a return to stagflation — and likely little, if any, increase in tariff revenue as trade volume declined. Instead, recent data show increases in tariff revenue. Personal real income and savings were up. Job creation exceeded prognoses. Advertisement There was no surge in inflation. The supposedly 'crashed' stock market reached historic highs. Common-sense Americans might not have been surprised: The prior stock market frenzy was predicated on what was, in theory, supposed to have happened rather than what was likely to occur. Advertisement After all, if tariffs were so toxic and surpluses irrelevant, why did our affluent European and Asian trading rivals insist on both surpluses and protective tariffs? Most Americans recalled that the mere threat of tariffs and Trump's jawboning had led to several trillion dollars in promised foreign investment and at least some plans to relocate manufacturing and assembly back to the United States. Would that change in direction not lead to business optimism and eventually more jobs? Would countries purposely running up huge surpluses through asymmetrical trade practices not have far more to lose in negotiations than those suffering gargantuan deficits? Were Trump's art-of-the-deal threats of prohibitive tariffs not mere starting points in negotiations that would eventually lead to likely agreements more favorable to the United States than in the past, and moderate rather than punitive tariffs? Would not the value of the huge American consumer market mean that our trade partners, who were racking up substantial surpluses, would agree they could afford modest tariffs and trim their substantial profit margins rather than suicidally price themselves out of a lucrative market entirely? Illegal immigration: wrong again Economists and bureaucrats were equally wrong on the border. We were told for four years that only 'comprehensive immigration reform' would stop illegal immigration. Advertisement Most Americans differed: They knew firsthand we had more than enough immigration laws, but had elected as President Joe Biden, who deliberately destroyed borders and had no intention of enforcing existing laws. Every week, Post columnist Miranda Devine sits down for exclusive and candid conversations with the most influential disruptors in Washington. Subscribe here! When Trump promised he would ensure that, instead of 10,000 foreign nationals entering illegally each day, within a month no one would, our experts scoffed. But if the border patrol went from ignoring or even aiding illegal immigrants to stopping them right at the border, why would such a prediction be wrong? Advertisement Those favoring a reduction in illegal immigration and deportations also argued that crime would fall, and citizen job opportunities would increase, given an estimated 500,000 aliens with criminal records had entered illegally during the Biden administration, while millions of other illegal aliens were working off the books, for cash, and often at reduced wages. Indeed, once the border was closed tightly, hundreds of thousands were returned to their countries, and employers began turning to US citizens. Job opportunities did increase. Crime did go down. Advertisement Legal-only immigration regained its preferred status over illegal entry. Trump talked of trying voluntary deportation — again to wide ridicule from immigration 'experts.' But why would not a million illegal aliens wish to return home 'voluntarily' — if they were given free flights, a $1,000 bonus and, most importantly, a chance later to reapply for legal entry once they arrived home? Iran fears came to naught Many of our national security experts warned that taking out Iran's nuclear sites was a fool's errand. Advertisement It would supposedly unleash a Middle East tsunami of instability. It would cause a wave of terrorism. It would send oil prices skyrocketing. It would not work, ensuring Iran would soon reply with nuclear weapons. In fact, oil prices decreased after the American bombing. A twenty-five-minute entrance into Iranian airspace and bombing led to a ceasefire, not a conflagration. As for a big power standoff, World War III and 30,000 dead, common sense asked why China would wish the Strait of Hormuz to close, given that it imports half of all Middle Eastern oil produced? Why would Russia — bogged down in Ukraine and suffering nearly a million casualties — wish to mix it up in Iran, after ignominiously fleeing Syria and the fall of its Assad clients? Russia usually thinks of Russia, period. It does not lament when tensions elsewhere are expected to spike oil prices. Why would Russia resupply Iran's destroyed Russian-made anti-aircraft systems, when it was desperate to ward off Ukrainian air attacks on its homeland, and Iran would likely again lose any imported replacements? As for waves of terror, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis have suffered enormous losses from Israel. Their leadership has been decapitated; their streams of Iranian money have been mostly truncated. Why would they rush to Iran's side to war with Israel, when Iran did not come to their aid when they were battling and losing to the Israelis? Has a theater-wide war really ever started when one side entered and left enemy territory in 25 minutes, suffering no casualties and likely killing few of the enemy? As far as the extent of damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure, why should we believe our expert pundit class? Prior to the American and Israeli bombing, many of them warned that Iran was not on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, and therefore, there was little need for any such preemptive action. Then, post facto, the same experts flipped. Now they claimed, after the bombing severely damaged most Iranian nuclear sites, that there was an increased threat, given that some enriched uranium (which they had previously discounted) surely had survived and thus marked a new existential danger of an Iranian nuclear bomb. Was Trump really going to 'blow up,' 'destroy' or 'cripple' NATO, as our diplomatic experts insisted, when his first-term jawboning led from six to twenty-three nations meeting their 2% of GDP defense-spending promises? Given two ongoing theater-wide wars, given Trump's past correct predictions about the dangers of the Nord Stream II pipeline, given the vulnerability of an anemic NATO to Russian expansionism, and given that Russian leader Vladimir Putin did not invade during Trump's first term, unlike the three presidencies before and after his own, why wouldn't NATO agree to rearm with 5%, and appreciate Trump's efforts both to bolster the capability of the alliance and the need to end the Ukraine war? Why the 'experts' repeatedly fail Why were our 'scientific' pollsters so wrong in the last three presidential elections, and so at odds with the clearly discernible electoral shifts in the general electorate? Where were crackpot ideas like defund the police, transgender males in women's sports and open borders first born and nurtured? Answer: the university, and higher education in general. The list of wrongheaded, groupthink, and degreed expertise could be vastly expanded. We remember the '51 intelligence authorities' who swore the Hunter Biden laptop was 'likely' cooked up by the Russians. Our best and brightest economists signed letters insisting that Biden's multitrillion-dollar wasteful spending would not result in inflation spikes. Our global warming professors' past predictions should have ensured that Americans were now boiling, with tidal waves destroying beachfront communities, including Barack Obama's two multimillion-dollar estates. Our legal eagles, after learning nothing from the bogus Mueller investigation and adolescent Steele dossier, but with impressive Ivy League degrees, pontificated for years that Trump by now would be in jail for life, given 91 'walls-are-closing-in' and 'bombshell' indictments. So why are the degreed classes so wrong, and yet so arrogantly never learn anything from their past flawed predictions? One, our experts usually receive degrees from our supposedly marquee universities. But as we are now learning from long overdue autopsies of institutionalized campus racial bias, neo-racial segregation, 50%-plus price-gouging surcharges on federal grants, and rabid antisemitism, higher education in America has become anti-Enlightenment. Universities now wage war against free-thinkers, free speech, free expression and anything that freely questions the deductive groupthink of the diversity/equity/inclusion commissariat, and global warming orthodoxies. The degreed expert classes emerge from universities whose faculties are 90 to 95% left-wing and whose administrations are overstaffed and terrified of their radical students. The wonder is not that the experts are incompetent and biased, but that there are a brave few who are not. Two, Trump drove the degreed class insane to the degree it could no longer, even if it were willing and able (and it was not), offer empirical assessments of his policies. From his crude speech to his orange skin to his Queens accent to his MAGA base to his remarkable counterintuitive successes and to his disdain for the bicoastal elite, our embarrassing experts would rather be dead wrong and anti-Trump than correct in their assessments — if they in any small way helped Trump. Three, universities are not just biased, but increasingly mediocre and ever more isolated from working Americans and their commonsense approaches to problem solving. PhD programs in general are not as rigorous as they were even two decades ago. Grading, assessments, and evaluations in professional schools must increasingly weigh non-meritocratic criteria, given their admissions and hiring protocols are not based on disinterested evaluation of past work and expertise. The vast endowments of elite campuses, the huge profit-making foreign enrollments, and the assured, steady stream of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal aid created a sense of fiscal unreality, moral smugness, unearned superiority and ultimately, blindness to just how isolated and disliked the professoriate had become. But the public has caught on that too many Ivy-League presidents were increasingly a mediocre, if not incompetent, bunch. Most university economists could not run a small business. The military academies did not always turn out the best generals and admirals. The most engaging biographers were not professors. And plumbers and electricians were usually more skilled in their trades than most journalist graduates were in their reporting. Add it all up, and the reputation of our predictors, prognosticators and experts has been radically devalued — to the point of utter worthlessness. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
