Changes to written representation of languages tends to be much more conservative compared to the changes in the spoken languages they're based upon. This is often due to the desire to preserve continuity in the ability for people to gain literacy without having to relearn a new system and retranslate all works that were written in the previous system. This generally lasts until the difference between speech and writing becomes bad enough to hinder literacy, at which point script reforms may happen. Many of the more "phonetic" writing systems encountered in continental European languages were due to the fact that they had relatively more recent script reforms that made spellings closer to how their words were pronounced in their modern languages. Written English, on the other hand, still tends to conserve spelling that reflects older pronunciations.
The other side of that coin being that the more the script is reformed, the less accessible to non-specialists become a culture’s great works of literature. Shakespeare being the obvious example.
An example of a language that has it worse than English is Tibetan, which hasn't had a script reform since 800: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btn0-Vce5ug