Well, my faith in high school history curriculums is already abysmal, and even some undergraduate-level college courses in pre-Columbian history is pretty bad. So I feel it's safe to say what whatever your teacher(s) were repeating is likely sourced from the History Channel and not anywhere official.

The thing is, any evidence of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (except for the Bering Strait which is kind of a given) would be paradigm-shattering. Outside of the Norse, Polynesian contact is the one we have the most potential (though not irrefutable) evidence for and there's still plenty of skepticism on that front. Inside of the Norse, any settlements outside L'anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, even along the same coast, is a subject treated extremely carefully and often don't turn up.

So it goes to say that if anything like what you just described — an Egyptian-Mesoamerican cultural connection — was an actual thing, you'd be seeing it everywhere. You wouldn't be able to get away from it. And in that case, no, I honestly haven't heard of any "historians" that would be "looking into" the similarities of artifacts. And they shouldn't be, anyway, because that isn't their job. It's an archaeologist's job. You do however see the odd armchair "researcher" on the Internet comparing, for example, a Mesoamerican glyph from Cacaxtla and the Egyptian glyph for "house" and asserting the two must be the same because they look alike...with no other context considered whatsoever.

And that's a common trope you see among hyperdiffusionist pseudoarchaeologists, employing a technique jokingly labeled as "looks like-is like" archaeology. (I prefer Red Circle Archaeology, but I don't make the trends). Something superficially similar to another depicted object forces the untrained human brain's pattern-recognition software to assert there must be a direct connection between these two things, all the while, none of them ever really care to explore the true context and history of these things which actual archaeologists and historians have worked on, and they're often very unique.

Taken to its extreme, you get the completely absurd ancient handbag theory.

For Egyptian hieroglyphs, literacy in the true hieroglyphic form was an elite affair only taught in areas where direct Egyptian administration in their language was done and sensible. Outside of the Nile valley, i.e. the Middle East where Akkadian was the lingua franca, Egyptian officials used hieroglyphs in important inscriptions but the local officials and people used their own languages and related writing systems, which the Egyptians learned in their conquered territories for convenience. And for Nubia, which was conquered by Egypt, by the time it adopted hieroglyphic writing it was already extremely Egyptianized to the point of being hard to distinguish.

The earliest potential evidence of Mesoamerican writing shows a clear history of independent cultural evolution towards a graphic form that conveys spoken thought without any kind of Old World influence. Furthermore, at 900-400 BC, not only was Egyptian hieroglyphs developed to the point where any influence on Olmec writing would be painfully obvious but Egypt itself was in its Third Intermediate Period, and was in barely any position to unify itself, let alone engage in some foolhardy Atlantic colonization its ships would have no hope of surviving. By the time you get to the Isthmian script in 500 BC, an independent, sovereign Ancient Egypt is no more and, just as the Olmec traditions, there's not a shred of commonalities in the way it was written with the way any contemporary Old World script was written. Especially any that couldn't be explained by an independent creation.

In a scenario where Ancient Egypt was able to spread its hieroglyphic script to anywhere in the Americas, not only would the original exploration missions have been incredibly expensive but there would have to have been a sustained level of cross-oceanic travel to maintain such a presence that their culture would have influenced the local polities to such an extent that their own monumental script was being used in Mesoamerica. In short, the amount of primary, secondary and tertiary evidence available for this would be nothing short of staggering. And thanks to the Egyptian climate we've got a lot of papyrus records. Even outside of records, the cultures of Egypt and Mesoamerica would be extremely different from what they are now and reflect influences of one another, yet the agricultural, political, settlement, kinship etc. patterns of Mesoamerica do not resemble Egypt.

So, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...and extraordinary claims of extraordinary evidence require extraordinary frequency.