Science education encounters several challenges.
One is that many of the basics cannot be learned on the fly, they have to be hammered in through rigorous repetition. Most of the people who are now professors only really internalized what they know because they were at some point TAs (teaching assistants) and were forced to cram hard before reiterating a subject over and over again to regular students. Only after that often grueling experience did they become firm on a subject and able to take off from there and leap into research, further discovery and insight.
As should be obvious, little of that required repetition is offered to or asked of students up through high school, and where it is asked of them it may squelch initial curiosity and breed disdain instead.
That’s the real question: how do you lay the foundations (painful discipline required) without dousing the flames of curiosity?
As a psychology student (in the mid 1980s) I once came across an approach for science education for college (developed by a scholar by the name of Epstein) which encouraged students to reinvent major scientific discoveries. He reported that rediscovery was much more motivating than regurgitation, and that it brought out great potential in students that did not look like potential high achievers at first. I don’t know what ever became of the approach.
But I do remember how it bugged me that most of our time at the university seemed to be taken up by the need to regurgitate theories that had already proven of limited worth, and that there was no space for creatively thinking for ourselves.