In addition to the broader philosophical questions raised by /u/EdHistory101, there's a very practical aspect.

Let me ask you this: if you were a secondary teacher given two or even three weeks to cover the Adams and Jefferson administrations, precisely what would you cut out to spend a couple of days on the Barbary Wars?

Here's your underlying problem: there's simply an incredible amount of material that occurred between 1796 and 1805 that's still vastly relevant and applicable to where the United States is as a nation today. The Alien and Sedition Acts are incredibly important, as were the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions that provided the intellectual basis of nullification and ultimately secession. Marbury v. Madison is the entire foundation of judicial review and the practical beginning of the third branch of government, so you have to explain the Midnight Judges and the vast philosophical differences between the Federalists and Republicans that still echo in many of our political debates today. The Election of 1800 now has vastly more historical relevance than it did even in 1999 and kids want to know about it given Hamilton (even though it's presented terribly inaccurately there). The Louisiana Purchase is one of the most crucial aspects to American expansionism that led to all sorts of other things.

And that doesn't even include Citizen Genet, the XYZ Affair, and the Quasi War with France - to think of others just off the top of my head. (Heck, at this point I'd include Samuel Chase's impeachment as a subject that probably should be taught at the secondary level nowadays given how dramatically more important impeachment has become - but I've encountered plenty of people teaching history or law on the tertiary level who give me blank looks when I mention it.) So from a practical standpoint, rank ordering the police action on the Barbary Coast means it's just going to get skipped. For that matter, if you really want to truly start looking at the rise of the United States to a superpower, jump ahead 40 years to the Mexican-American War and all the significant implications that had for global power, domestic political realignment, and setting up the Civil War - and that too is not taught nearly enough.

So it's not that the naval battles off Tripoli aren't a worthwhile topic of study - and I certainly encourage you to do work on them! - but relatively speaking, their relevance to where the United States is today isn't all that comparatively important unless you're a naval historian working on early 19th century history, and I suspect most syllabi reflect that.

I'll defer to those more familiar to those with the role of the Corsairs in the US's role in global politics, but I can speak to why it's not taught in American schools.

First, "Barbary pirates" is often used as a way to bring the ahistorical idea of "white slavery" into a conversation. This older thread provides some additional context about that.

I've answered a similar question before with regards to American history education and it's for the same reason a whole bunch of stuff doesn't make its way into textbooks and curriculum: it hasn't been deemed sufficiently important to rise to the level of something that's routinely taught. The post where I provided that history has since been deleted by the OP but I'm happy to reshare. The question was basically, why aren't Barbary pirates taught in school. I offered:

I've answered a few variations on the question, why isn't X taught in American schools and generally speaking, it's due to three factors - explored in answers to previous questions:

• The lack of a national educational system, which means a high degree of variability between states and districts

• The influence of school boards on textbook content

• The overwhelming whiteness of the teaching force and American public education in general

Someone then asked:

Can you explain how any of these posts relate to OP’s question.

I replied:

Happy to clarify! To be sure, it is entirely possible that there are classrooms in America where teachers present lessons on Barbary pirates - the history, though, of American public education has led to a present with limited consistent practices across the country. In other words, the answer to any question about what does or does not get taught in American schools is going to come down to those three reasons, regardless of the content.

Regarding yours and [OP's] questions, the role of whiteness is both about the nature of what gets taught and how it gets taught. Education historians who identify themes across American education history use the phrase "grammar of schooling" to describe the things that are adopted in schools across the country despite the fact there is no national education system. These are things such as referring to teachers by gender identifier and their last name, younger children walking single file down the hallways, older children storing their items in lockers, apple motifs, etc. This "grammar" is what identifies an American school as an American school. It's shaped by cultural norms, mostly those from White Anglo-Saxon Protestant cultures. Which isn't to say the norms of school are only seen in American schools - you can see children around the world raise their hand to get the teacher's attention. The act of hand-raising and waiting for permission to speak, though, is shaped by a particular idea of how children should interact with adults. And to put it plainly, it's very much about a style of communication shaped primarily by the comfort levels of White adults, mostly women in the classroom and men in positions of leadership.

The second theme historians identify is the notion of Americana, which fits into the grammar of schooling. Christopher Columbus is one such example. Virtually all schools in America have done Columbus related events for as long as the school has been around as Columbus was framed as one of the first "great" American men. From a previous response on why Columbus is so popular in schools:

Americana can best be thought of as the packaging of American history and touchstones for the next generation. It's a framework that led to the "Washington and the cherry tree" genre of stories, generations of school children memorizing the preamble to the Constitution, learning Christopher Columbus "discovered" American and mass dislocation and genocide of Indigenous people was simply "manifest destiny", and other broad strokes about what happened on this soil. This simplistic approach to American history was embedded in the texts children read and the way teachers talked about history. ... This meant that the 400th anniversary [of his landing] was everything. Schools across the country were planning celebrations, not because they coordinated, but because celebrations of events related to Americana was something you did in American schools.

Which is to say, the narrative of the Barbary pirates hasn't historically been as important enough to be categorized as Americana and adopted as part of the grammar of schooling. In effect, the things that have risen to that level are things that White teachers are comfortable teaching. This helps us understand why American schools are so bad at teaching a more accurate history of chattel slavery or Indigenous genocide.

They replied:

This general answer doesn’t say anything particular about the Barbary wars though. That’s what I was looking for.

So, I clarified:

Understood. The challenge is you're not going to get one. In other words, the same reason American schools don't teach the Barbary wars is the reason they don't teach King Leopold's genocide in Africa. Or why New York State schools don't teach the history of California missions and California schools don't teach about the Erie Canal. Only a handful of content pieces related to Americana have risen to the level of being part of the "grammar of schooling", meaning they appear in every school.

In other words, the Barbary wars aren't unique in the fact they're not taught in most American schools.