There is one slight pedagogical problem here: The 1905 paper has
a formal and mathematical part, which is OK, but the paper also
contains an intepretation in terms of rulers that can't be trusted
and clocks that can't be trusted (Lorentz contraction and time
dilatation).
The intuitive and pictorial interpretation did not come along until
a year or so later. Poincaré and others were involved. This
involves invariant (proper) length and invariant (proper) time,
spacetime diagrams, and all that.
Einstein adopted the spacetime approach when it became available,
and relied on it in all his future work, including the development
of general relativity.
So the pedagogical question is, why Why WHY is it still standard
practice in introductory courses to bedevil students with rulers
that can't be trusted and clocks that can't be trusted? http://www.av8n.com/physics/odometer.pdf
Why not just start with the spacetime approach, which is easier
to understand, easier to depict, easier to teach, easier to
learn, more consistent with things we've already covered (e.g.
vectors and trigonometry), more sophisticated, more powerful,
and more extensible? http://www.av8n.com/physics/spacetime-trig.pdf
Just because Einstein came to relativity the hard way doesn't
mean we need to do the same.