Well, physics at school is a dangerous topic, and I'm not sure whether this is the right subforum for it, but also I couldn't agree more with sopiecentaur in. I'm from Germany, and also in our high schools we have an awful coverage of science and (even worse unfortanately!) math!
You are perfectly right in saying that one first has to get the basic foundations on classical physics (classical mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics and statistics) right, before one can hope to give some insight into quantum physics. On the other hand, of course, you also have to keep in mind to provide the excitement of science to high school pupils, and unfortunately classical physics doesn't draw their attential usually. Usually, they want to know about cosmology, particle physics (the Higgs boson of course first!), and so on.
I'm not a high school teacher. So, I cannot say, how to solve this trouble, but I think you can use the "hype topics", which you can explain on a more qualitative level first, to motivate the students to learn also about the "old physics", in order to provide the necessary foundations to really understand "modern physics".
Then there are some age-old nogos in teaching physics at schools, which are hard to get rid of, especially when talking to teachers. Some of those are:
(1) The photoelectric effect demonstrates the quantization of the electromagnetic field and the existence of photons. This is wrong! The photoelectric effect demonstrates the quantum features of electrons only. The Einstein formula is derived from the treatment of the interaction of the quantized bound electron with a classical electromagnetic wave in time-dependent perturbation theory.
(2) Using Bohr's model for atoms to introduce quantum theory of particles. This is not only quantitatively wrong (except by accident for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom) but even provides a wrong qualitative picture of the atom. A hydrogen atom is not a tiny disk but a sphere, and the idea of classical orbits of electrons around the nucleus is inapplicable as we know from the correct "new quantum theory" (new is also a bit misleading; after all it's nearly 90 years old :-)).
(3) "Relativistic mass". This notion is superfluous and misleading. It's not plain wrong, but nowadays the mass of an object is its rest mass (or equivalent the "invariant mass"), while energy is named energy and not mass times c^2. The correct relationship between mass and momentum of a (free) particle is E=\sqrt{p^2 c^2+m^2 c^4}, and that's the temporal component of a four-vector while the invariant mass is a scalar. Of course, most probably you cannot teach the covariant tensor formalism at high school, but keeping this in mind helps.
(4) Somewhat more ontopic in this thread: The one and only correct electromotive force in the integral form of Faraday's law is given by
\mathscr{E}=\int_{\partial A} \mathrm{d} \vec{r} (\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B}).
Here, \partial A is the boundary curve of an arbitrary surface, oriented in relation to the surface's normal vectors according to the right-hand rule and in the most general case time dependent, \vec{E} and \vec{B} are the electric and magnetic components of the electromagnetic field wrt. to the reference frame, where the calculation is done, and \vec{v}=\vec{v}(t,\vec{r}) is the velocity of the line element at time t and location \vec{r} as measured in this very reference frame. Then and only then you can write Faraday's Law in the integral form as
\frac{\mathrm{d} \Phi}{\mathrm{d} t} = -\mathscr{E}
with the magnetic flux defined, again in the same reference frame, by
\Phi=\int_A \mathrm{d} \vec{A} \cdot \vec{B}.
Closely related with this often wrongly stated integral form of Faraday's law are phenomena like the homopolar generator, which are easily solved when referring to the above given correct integral form.