There'll still be a varied quality of in-house teaching, but at least the primary lessons could be world-class regardless of the location.
Education definitely can scale, but good education scales much less well than slick-but-ineffective education.
Yes, that would be best, but that removes the most fun aspects of teaching (curriculum development, lecturing) from the local teachers, while leaving them the most draining (keeping students on task, discipline, keeping the classroom quiet).
That's why doing it well requires more money. That's why parents need to be involved, which is why we need a better economic system where productivity increases actually lead to more free time instead of an increasingly Dilbert way of working.
School tries to teach this. The literature seems to indicate that it's not very good at actually teaching this.
Starting at “artificial scarcity”/zero and building up/out is ridiculous.
There are plenty of people who would do such work, who probably need little training, but reliable routine blows up the speculation game. We exist in a state similar to watching a movie; suspended disbelief. These 60+ yo political truths? Don’t look away!
We know a whole lot more about logistics and manufacturing now than we did in the 50s.
It’s time for the story to move along.
The purpose of education is also very widely misunderstood. I often see (for context: I'm in Eastern Europe) regrets that the education process does not provide valuable life skills, that there is too much focus on subjects like physics or biology.
School teaches you to be systematic, to look for information, to know that even if you don't like or want to know something, you have to sit down and learn it. These are very important lessons that can later be translated into other "life skills".