It seemed like the kids who were into chemistry were frustrated by the distraction, and the kids who weren't were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of concepts. They didn't seem like useful stepping stones to how things actually worked, just wasted time on things that then had to be un-learned for the next module.
I didn't need much of a "why" to crunch through stoichiometry as a kid who was into physics and algebra who liked puzzles, but I also stopped doing chem after my freshman undergrad requirement. I didn't really understand organic chem and the tie between carbon backbones and interesting organic molecules that can actually do things. I think I would have taken it farther if we hadn't exclusively focused on simple ions in solution for like 2 years, implying to a high schooler that the only career available was more efficient ways of manufacturing ammonia.
I’m sure I missed something important because all the memorization was super annoying and so I basically checked out, but I regret nothing and revel in my ignorance of the topic. Chemistry, ugh, may as well be alchemy as far as I’m concerned.
But I hated HS chemistry class. Of course we never did any sort of cool experiments, most of what I remember is tediously drawing models of different atoms.
Anyway, I don't really have a point. But I think chemistry is just hard, as in trying to make it (the theory, not the lab work) approachable and interesting at high school level is nearly impossible.
But thinking you can get 100% students interested in it is probably unrealistic. I don't think you can get all the students interested in any given topic, so why think of this as a failure? Getting a decent number of students interested is good enough. Getting all of them? Unrealistic.
I don't even think this is a failure of the students. Coding isn't universally interesting. It's ok to find it boring, through no fault of either the teacher or the students.