No, we keep doing it this way because the public refuses to actually engage the real challenges of actually educating a nation. Comments like this one being excellent cases in point.
"It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then on. The cry for "basic skills" practice is a smokescreen behind which schools pre-empt the time of children for twelve years and teach them the six lessons I've just taught you." [1]
Unless you have some strong evidence to argue why "sit down and lecture" is the most cost effective way to educate a population, I will retain my belief that it is a cargo cult at best.
Can you also substantiate the claim that 50 contact-hours is sufficient for students to become "self-teachers" and that they actually do that?
I have volunteered at a school that allows students to become self-teachers and it is very effective. They follow the Sudbury model, and students entirely teach themselves everything from reading to mathematics. They graduate from college at higher rates than traditional school students, make more, and have very high levels of self reported happiness. It's a really cool model, I wish it was more common. The school I helped at had no teachers, only 3 adults for 120 young people. They could all come and go throughout the day as long as they signed in and out. It's been up and running for decades, so it's not just a flash in the pan.
See:
A long term side project of mine is to build a neighborhood that can sustain a model like what you’re describing so I’m always looking for inroads into the practice of it. I’ll dive into the Sudbury Model but keen for real world examples as well!