Given how important history is to understand the present state of the modern world, why is history not a more important subject in school? When I was a student, it seemed like my entire education was focused on the "modern European world". We went straight from Napoleon to democracy which left me quite confused tbh. I did not understand how democracy came about, why it was so important, and what the point of all the confusing terms were. After learning more about world history after graduation I soon realized there was more to it than just the dry facts and dates which I could not relate to. I understood eventually that history was made of individuals and the actions they took. It was about the words of individuals on the written page and the biases they held. These are all very interesting for me to analyze and criticize, but none of it ever came up in school. Why is this? What is the point of public history education because I certainly didn't learn much from it...
Why do you think your personal experience is universal? You should state when, where, and who taught you (not literally, but do consider you might have just had a shit teacher).
Much modern history pedagogy (in the UK) is moving away from the individual's experience to focus on social groups and culture, but again I don't know where or when you went to school so it's difficult to know whether you'd have experienced this.
Ultimately, you have not presented a question which can be answered. You are standing on a soapbox to complain that you weren't taught well enough or in a manner which pleased you.
What do you actually expect us to do about it?
I felt like the history classes I got in the California public education system weren't bad considering the comparatively limited funding and time allotted to them. Obviously like just about all public K12 history education in the US it was very Eurocentric but at least an effort was always made to keep that fact on the table rather than under it. Coverage was pretty limited due to the small number and wide breadth of the courses but I felt like most of the things we were taught from before the 20th century were solid facts as opposed to immaterial biases, and very basic, so pretty useful as the foundation of a more in-depth understanding of events.
That was even though I had a couple really awful teachers who couldn't manage to cover a quarter of the textbook by the end of the course. A lot of students who didn't have any interest in the material clocked out from the beginning with those teachers and many probably internalized a negative attitude toward formal "history" that they still carry today.
Overall there wasn't enough history being taught and a lot of bullshit was bundled into it, but at least there was a fair amount of non-bullshit content.
Anyway, to answer your question, things are the way they are because technical sciences and English are king right now, and still on the rise year to year in terms of institutional favor. So clearly the thing to do is prove how better history knowledge will lead people to more easily find jobs and grow the economy.