No.
This is not because "they had no idea about the concepts we have found recently?" - relativity and other non-Newtonian phyics is a different issue - it's about having the best, most accurate represenation of the same concept, and it is very unlikely that the very first attempt in defining a concept is the best result possible.
We can make (and have made) much better summaries of Newtonian physics than Newton did, better definitions of Newton's principles than those which he wrote, when we teach Newton's laws of motion, we never use the original wording but an improved paraphrase of them. The original has no value for the learner (other than a historical curiosity) because the revised versions are simply better expressions of the same thing. Why don't we require the same thing from philosophy?
To be fair, the main reason we don't study Newton's ideas in their original form is that he wrote in Latin. The second is that he went to rather extreme lengths to make his writing obscure; he was very possessive of his ideas, and didn't want other philosophers pinching them.
Read the Newton Leibniz correspondence.
Similarly in another field, Economics, I hear undergraduates are still urged to read Wealth of Nations.
I mean, how would we decide that? Do modern learners understand Newtonian physics better than Newton did? By what metric?
We can tell because they can make predictions within that framework which he could not.
Newton did not know e.g. the formulation of stuff in terms of Hamiltonians, even though it is still in a sense in the same framework.
I don’t think studying the Latin is helpful in coming up with reformulations of physics things.
"At age ten, he stumbled across a Latin copy of Euclid; and at twelve he studied Newton's Arithmetica Universalis. He moved on to read the Principia, and by age 16 he had covered much of it, as well as some more recent works on analytic geometry and the differential calculus." (from the Wikipedia article about Hamilton).
Newton most certainly did not mean the “same thing” we mean. His context, his models, his metaphysical and spiritual ground were all different from ours. All of that is simply ignored. A student today is presented with appropriated thoroughly mutated cuts, is told that those are Newton's contribution to the glorious building of Science, and never questions that afterwards.
The middle ground is probably currant books - that track the evolution of thinking over time. My favorite example is From Atomos to Atom. I’ve never seen anything like that in a science class.
The thing with science is that it's generally considered more practical than philosophy, and people are content with learning a bunch of pre-packaged recipes to solve pre-packaged problems (use F = ma to solve that inclined plane problem).
But try asking the average student what F = ma actually means a bit deeper than just how they would apply it and you'll see how much the topic is "covered."
Consider that the concepts of force and mass themselves are mostly left unexplained. Or that people have no idea what "energy" is.
They're models of reality that are not taught as such, because we're happy with teaching future engineers a bunch of recipes to learn by rote as long as they "work".
So I remain unconvinced of the proposition that philosophy should be taught the same way. In that respect it's closer to science and the inherent doubt that comes with the scientific method — even though, similarly, there's a lot of dogmatic "philosophy" (think Marxism).
I’d put reading Plato on par with reading The Skeptical Chymist or John Dalton’s Chemical Philosophy. I think it’s a miss primary sources like that are absent from most undergraduate degrees in science - they reveal a lot about what science really is.
But building an entire undergraduate curriculum on nothing but those primary sources? There’s just too much material and so many of those constructs have failed to accurately describe reality.
To use Marxism as an example, Main Currents of Marxism is probably on par with From Atomos to Atom. Both Science and Philosophy could benefit from teaching from currents vs. primary sources (philosophy) and compilations of “facts” (science).