There has recently been some discussion of increasing the numbers of schools that teach Latin - see https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/08/requiescat-in-pace-no-need-to-resurrect-latin-in-schools for a response to this. This seems to be an ill thought out response to the crisis in language teaching in this country.
I studied Latin at school for a couple of years although I never got to a high standard. I can see the value of learning Latin for its intrinsic interest as a language and for the access to history. However, of the languages I have studied (French, Russian and Chinese), it is the only one I have not made an effort to maintain (I am currently practising the latter two on Duolingo and read some texts and watch films in French.
There seems to be an argument that most learners will have less investment (Norton 2000) in learning Latin than modern languages. There might, for example, be an incentive for schoolchildren to learn languages like Polish or Urdu. These would be languages that would seem relevant in many communities where pupils might hear the languages or see shops with words written in those languages.
These languages would be at least as intellectually challenging as Latin (e.g. Polish has cases) but would have the advantage of seeming relevant to the modern world.
Norton, B. (2000) Identity And Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity And Educational Change, London, Pearson Education.