Looks great! The only major thing I can see is to do with paraphyletic groups, especially groups that used to be considered monophyletic (if you don’t understand those terms, don’t worry).
So see how you’ve got reptiles leading to birds, because birds are actually a type of reptile? It’s the same with crustaceans and protists. Animals, plants, and fungi all essentially came from within protists, and having them split off early like that doesn’t make much sense. For example, looking at the two protist examples you’ve got there, they’re not actually closely-related at all - malaria is actually next to the plants, and Amoeba splits off just before fungi but after plants.
It’s the same with crustaceans - insects have come from within crustaceans, and so they’re actually a type of crustacean. In both of these cases I’d recommend just to do something similar to what you’ve done with reptiles and birds, and that would solve it!
Other than that I can’t see any errors in the structure of the branches, although the three-way split of placental mammals is a little ambiguous and potentially confusing. Better to change it into two sets of double splits, in which case carnivorans (Cheetah, Wolf, and Seal) are closely-related to ungulates (Cow, Pig, Deer, and Whale), and the Euarchontoglires (Human, Ape, and Chipmunk) would split off from them first.
Two further things that aren’t essential for accuracy, but are good to know and include:
Firstly, be careful of presenting a tree of life as a sort of ‘hierarchy’ like this, as it can give the impression that organisms lower down are ‘less evolved’, and that somehow we humans are ‘more evolved’. I’m sure that wasn’t your intention, but when impressionable students see this, they may get the impression that organisms at the top of the tree are more advanced, or that evolution was ‘aiming’ to create something like humans. An easy way to combat this would simply be to flip it upside-down! Or alternatively you could add other organisms in if you wanted, which could be valuable if you want to talk in more detail about certain animal groups.
And secondly, a key thing is to aim for consistency in your choice of names and labels. Looking at all of your labels here, there’s nothing incorrect that I can see, but why do some of them have a rank label and others not (e.g. why “Class Boned Fish” but just “Jawless Fish”), and why are some scientific names and others common names (e.g. why the scientific name “Eukarya” rather than the common name “Eukaryotes” but the common name “Plants” rather than the scientific name “Plantae”)?
Those are my two cents at least, but overall it looks great! I wish I had learnt this stuff when I was in high school