Well, we have the NEA . . .
"Official" art systems have never produced the art which has endured. Patronage has. The last gasp of focused instruction and a heirarchic system for employing "workers" in the arts were the 19th century academies. Were they successful, nurturing a "climate" in which great art could flourish? I think so.
With humble admiration for those who
can "teach" art to children, (I wouldn't take 10 times your $100 per hour gross, Rebecca) and full agreement such opportunities should be widely available and desirable to all, I tend to think widespread awareness and appreciation of "fine art" is more likely to "trickle down".
If acculturating the American public to appreciate and become knowledgeable about art is even a consideration in higher education, I think that generally, state supported university art departments have failed the public they are supposed to serve. In almost every other discipline, there are "real life" communities of professionals who demand certain standards of excellence from graduates of university programs . . . accountants, engineers, the medical professions.
However, the art departments truly are "ivory towers" from whence the entrenched sneer down upon the poverty of the common aesthetics the public which supports them holds, while they do little or nothing to improve the social climate to foster an enlightened appreciation of art in college graduates.