Many developed countries have national curricula and specific teacher-training standards, but the United States does not. Instead decisions on curricular and standards are created and enforced at the state and local levels, often by politically elected figures including governors, mayors, superintendents, and school boards.

This leaves early education in the United States open to a much greater sway of political influence. This can be seen in examples of Texas attempting to legislate the display the ten commandments in school classrooms in 2023, reading science being neglected in the adoption of Culkins' Units of Study curriculum, and other footballs like the supposed suppression of critical race theory in right leaning states.

This looks like an interesting question...

Similar ideas discussed here: Ellis, B., & Rowe, M. (n.d.). Guided choice-based learning (No. 4). Retrieved November 29, 2021, from https://inbeta.uwc.ac.za/2018/02/09/4-guided-choice-based-learning/

It's not self-evident to me that these activities are the same as those associated with hacking (and I'm not talking about the malevolent/negative connotations of hacking).

I also think of a hacker as a tinkerer, which can include "manipulation, re-creation, breaking, building, etc." but need not. It feels like there's something fundamental missing here but I can't put my finger on it.

I don't really have a conclusion here, other than to suggest that the hacker/scholar relationship might need a lot more development than I see here.