Sometimes I wonder if analog programs are dropped in public schools due to uninformed notions about photography, and what photographic (or art, for that matter) education is, or must be. I think often it is a budgetary choice ("we can't do both"), when, in fact the basics (and actually more of the actual basics) can be learned with film equipment, which doesn't need to be upgraded for technological reasons. Local museums and independent art education institutions still teach wet process, along with digital if they can afford the digital hardware.
My guess is that the hardware investment is also seen as able to serve non artistic disciplines also, should the budget necessitate the closing of art programs, as in the familiar lamented music program being dropped.
I also think, as the photographic world in general, moves to digital processes, knowledge and awareness of the analog ones diminishes. Note Brooks Jensen's editorial in the current issue of Lenswork.
And I notice, in observing work submitted for gallery competitions, a lot of the winning (or accepted) images are, in my opinion (whether I entered / was accepted or not) not what I would consider well "seen" and many are more interesting for their manipulated qualities. And some are outright derivative. Digital application is "in", whether we like it or not.