In conventional schooling we are taught according to a curriculum: it dictates what we must learn over the course of a week, semester, year and our education as a whole. This is a good thing - setting a mandatory baseline for what we learn means that we can live in a society where a certain level of knowledge of reading, writing, arithmetic, culture can be taken for granted. This allows we can collectively operate at a higher level of complexity which is required to have a well-functioning economy, bureaucracy, public sphere, etc. This can be extended through higher/further education programmes such as apprenticeships and academic degrees to allow people to specialise to perform specific roles. But these curricula only specify lower bounds for what we should learn
A beautiful thing about spaced repetition systems is that the more you study, the more you learn. This feels obvious but for some reason it isn't how we usually think about learning - in school we go to lessons, where knowledge is given to us in accordance with a curriculum, where a plan has been set out for what we will learn in a week, month, year, decade. This is probably needed if as a society we want to ensure that the majority of people reach a certain level of proficiency. It establishes a sort of mandatory baseline of learning. But it would be a huge mistake to think that this should limit how much we learn.
What if a student has a competitive spirit and wants to be the best in their class? Or they want to learn things more quickly? For example, a child has dreams of travelling the world, so they would like to gain fluency in a foreign language before leaving school. I remember being greatly disheartened when I asked the German teacher in secondary school when I should expect to actually be fluent in German. She told me that firstly I would have to finish my GCSEs, then do an A level, then go to university and take a course in modern languages. Overall this would mean studying over a course of at least 7 years...