I wouldn't expect to be able to sell it to education professionals. Their self-interest is in ignorance and the incompetent. If their clients were smart, they wouldn't need their services.
It's a lot like professional trainers or health care professionals. Their customers are people in poor health and not those in good health. Once people are in good health, they have no customers. So they have to maintain a pool of people in poor or marginal health -- by not improving their health.
Newspapers and media are the same way. They thrive on uninformed citizens; once people are informed, they have no need for popular notions of information because they are the original sources themselves.
The students of this phenomenon call it "disintermediation." What people formerly required many different specialists to do for them, they're now capable of doing for themselves. In writing, the pool used to be limited to those few who were excellent typists -- in order to produce anything publishable or readable. The word processor changed that -- eliminating secretaries.
One basically needs to teach one skill -- learning to operate a computer. From that one skill, one can learn anything else he needs to learn -- as he requires to, and not just because some educational guru says he has to. With so much that can be learned, one has to learn what he is most interested in learning at the present and put off learning just for learning's sake. That is not the classical education.
When one is intensely interested in a subject, he can very easily read the entire library of information on that subject in a month to a year. If he is not interested, not motivated, he will naturally be disinterested and resistive. That is the major failing of education of this time -- that it thinks it is about subjects rather than this desire to learn, regardless of the subject matter. It especially fails for those who are prodigies in a certain field, which everyone is to some degree.
How society functions is that interaction of those with diverse talents and not forcing people of diverse abilities to learn the same curriculum whether it interests or serves them or not. That is the prescription for failure. They learn things that are abstractly useful while ignoring those lessons that are immensely practical. They are teaching a thousand year old curriculum rather than the skills necessary today -- in much the same way they did a thousand years ago.
The bright spot in education is the home schools. Such products are winning all the academic prizes now mainly because their teachers teach to the student rather than to the curriculum. Additionally, that's where most of the prodigies have to be schooled because they would be tremendous problems in the traditional schools of mass education. Education in this day and age should be personalized and custom-designed to each student. The old school model is just obsolete and serves nobody but the teachers unions.
There's no person anywhere who doesn't want to learn something. You have to find out what that is rather than forcing them to learn what they don't want to learn -- or surely they will resist and turn on you. Most teachers do not know how to learn; they only know how to teach. The student wants to learn how to learn -- and that's what the teacher will not teach him, because most don't know the difference.
Of course, no one should argue with this position. But in practice it is not as easy as you suggest to motivate the learner. Even one on one a teacher needs a lot of skill to find what motivates a kid. Then you find that he would really like to learn how to play those guitar riffs he hears on the Metalica albumn. And you point to the computer and suggest that he do a gogle search.
After learning that it takes lots of practice to master a musical instrument, you try again to interest the person in a "classical education" "Did you know that the guitar was invented in ancient Greece?" you say. does this work? I doubt it. Now this kid may become motivated, or he may be using dope and never get motivated. But there are lots of these kids out there being "educated" along side the genuine learners, and often holding them back.
But your claim that teachers are in a conspiracy to not teach because if students learn, they can't teach them any more is partly true. California had a whole bilingual teaching industry based on the idea of not learning English until grade 6. Of course English should be learned in grade 1 but then the grades 2-6 teachers would not be needed, and bilingual teachers even got paid more. So doubtless this can happen. In other areas, like science for example, the teachers have a different plan. Teach enough interest in science to get kids to take more of it. Thereby ensuring more students in the advanced classes. It would work in math too, since most students do not pursue every advanced math class that is offered.