Scott Aaronson’s “Quantum Computing Since Democritus” makes a similar assertion about learning QM from a linear algebra perspective and completely sidestepping all the thorny interpretation questions. It’s mostly a book about complexity theory and what quantum computers actually buy you, but it gives a lot of insight into the mathematics of it.
That applied for almost every module, not just quantum.
My books went from 2 slit experiments, to particle in a box (1d and then 2d harmonic oscillators) with tunneling, and then the Hydrogen atom potential with electron orbitals as an extension, to perturbations for He, to Hartree-Fock and Born-Oppenheimer for large atoms and molecular models. Learning the <bra/ket> formalism can be useful for thinking about it, but it has to be motivated by the math.
I guess black body and scattering were pretty early too as motivation for the developments (as they historically were). Whereas EPR/Bell, Decoherence, and "Interpretations" were mostly discussed as interesting flavor and philosophical arguments.