We need to study what amounts of 1:1 tutoring have positive outcomes. If society can’t afford 1:1 tutoring for everyone, all the time, can we afford 20% of the time?
Taking a wider view, this is not really something that society wants in a widespread system; mandatory education systems do two things: They provide a minimum skill level; and they filter people into groups based on whether or not they can pass some bar. Better outcomes for more spending only really becomes a topic where the minimum bar is not being met.
Education systems/techniques set up for effectiveness first do exist, but typically in spaces where there is a need for an individual to obtain a specific skill (military education, employer training in high demand and skill areas, private tutoring).
Usually we just get calls for more spending, without the better outcomes. It's all about throwing good money after bad, into a failing system that's already among the most expensive in the world.
This is as close as you can get to "mastery learning" in a large classroom; keep all students on lockstep and highly engaged, trying to ensure that no one falls through the cracks.
"My contact lens, I dropped it on the sidewalk."
"Then why are you searching for it out in the street?"
"The light is better out here."
---
Likewise, sure, your way may be successful in getting children to memorize text. But that's worthless.