The problem is that teaching curricula are dictated to some extent by market forces - in most institutions i imagine setting a curriculum is rarely predicated upon a sage and knowledgable person evaluating each language on it's merits in a constructive and objective way.
Because the market uses java, c#, swift, flutter etc, that's what will be higher priority. Or alternatively will rely on personal experiences (usually from youth) which means languages like visual basic.
So you are right, the obstacle in your case are the teachers - but changing them isn't just a matter of educating them, it's a matter of managing public perception of LiveCode, which lets face it, is near non-existent. And the real pity is that it can be a really productive and pleasant platform for much more than just an entry language to programming.
Even the most willing person in the world wanting to find out more about LC will struggle to form a positive experience of superficial google searching (lets face it, you have about 15 min to convince people to consider it if you're lucky). A cursory search will find:
- a website which doesn't offer any 'meat', and maybe a couple of LC supporting website which are all a decade out of date.
- tutorials on the website - but 'lessons' are really only useful for those already dabbling in LC, practically impenetrable for non-users
- video tutorials - if you manage to find them on the website (no mean feat) they're behind a paywall
- a couple of courses on Udemy (better, but now quite outdated)
- maybe 20 or so videos on youtube - more if you dig deeper, but non-LC people won't have the attention span to do this
Now compare this with Qt i linked above. Qt already uses C++ so in public perception it's ahead of the game.A casual glance at the use cases by platform, industry etc on their website oozes attraction for developers wishing to go multi-platform and not with the the big names. In reality Qt will produce faster apps in general, but in many cases LiveCode could pony up equivalent apps with useable speed and the argument for going Qt is less strong.
In my mind, this is the headspace LC needs to occupy - but that needs major money... Social media campaigns, advertising, LC finding and helping devs produce quality apps that look the part, which it turn would serve as more advertising (eg on a website showing use-cases) and more, and in a *sustained* manner is major $$$.
This would have the trickle-down effect of bring LC into education - I would be very surprised in this day and age if LC managed this without something like the above, which is all the more pity...