In this picture I have colored the cubes of a tensor of rank $3$ or $3-$way tensor $\mathcal A_{\mathrm{klm}}$.
My questions are:
- If the red cube has like subscripts $\mathrm{klm}$ the yellow cube has subscript $\mathrm{(k+1)l(m+1)}$ or is it wrong? In general the subscripts of each cube, how should they be indicated, starting from the red one for example?
- Remaining in the field of the tensors is there any simple example in physics that could attract high school students?

To me considering a tensor as a cube is a particularly bad way of thinking about things, because a tensor is so much more than an array/cube/hypercube of data. One possible definition of an $(r,s)$ tensor over a (real, finite-dimensional) vector space $V$ is a multilinear map $T: (V^*)^r \times V^s \to \Bbb{R}$.
Once you choose a basis for the vector space $V$, then of course, everything about the tensor is contained in its components $T^{i_1\dots i_r}_{j_1\dots j_s}$ relative to that choice of basis. And in this case, sure, if you consider a $(0,3)$ tensor $A$, once you fix a basis, you only have to think about its components $A_{klm}$. The answer to which indices are for the yellow cube depend on how you're labelling your indices: it could be either $A_{k,l,m+1}$ or $A_{k,l+1,m}$ or $A_{k+1,l,m}$ (once again, depending on how you define things).
Finally, there are several examples of tensors (and tensor fields) which are very relevant for math and physics. Let me just give a few "simple" examples:
The standard dot/inner product on a finite-dimensional real vector space $V$ (for example $V= \Bbb{R}^n$) is a $(0,2)$-tensor. i.e $\langle\cdot, \cdot\rangle:V \times V \to \Bbb{R}$ is bilinear (and also symmetric and positive-definite). This allows you to define the geometry of the space, and gives rise to notions of angles, lengths. If you go from a single vector space to the collection of all tangent spaces to a manifold, you get the notion of a metric tensor field $g$ (of course, you need certain technical smoothness conditions also), and this is what's used in Riemannian geometry. Finally, if you replace the positive-definiteness condition to being non-degenerate with Lorentzian signature, you get the idea of a Lorentzian metric, and this is heavily used in Einstein's theory of Relativity (both Special and General).
The determinant of a matrix, thought of as an operation on the columns, $\det: \underbrace{\Bbb{R}^n \times \dots \times \Bbb{R}^n}_{\text{$n$ times}} \to \Bbb{R}$ is a $(0,n)$ tensor (and this is VERY VERY important, because it is also alternating, and so it is very closely related to the notion of volumes). For example, given $a,b,c \in \Bbb{R}^3$, the number $\det(a,b,c) \in \Bbb{R}$ represents the signed volume of the parallelepiped spanned by the vectors $a,b,c$.
Another example of a tensor, more on the physical side is the moment of inertia tensor $I$ associated to a rigid body (this is a $(0,2)$ tensor, or a $(1,1)$ tensor depending on how you define things). This roughly captures the information of "how hard" it is to rotate about various axes. Based on memory, I remember learning in highschool that the moment of inertia is a single number ($I = \dfrac{1}{2}mr^2$ for a point particle, $I = ml^2/12$ for a thin rod about the center), but of course this is only part of the story, and perhaps this is a good time to introduce students to the idea that there is more to the story.
A very commonly encountered tensor field is the exterior derivative of a function: $df$, which in local coordinates reads $df = \dfrac{\partial f}{\partial x^i}dx^i$ (I'm not sure this is understandable for highschoolers, but perhaps the one-dimensional version $df = f' dx$ should be possible to explain assuming they have learnt a little differential calculus).
Electromagnetism is full of tensor (fields), from the electromagnetic field strength tensor $F_{\alpha\beta}$, to the stress-energy tensor $T_{\alpha\beta}$. But the physical significance of this is I think pretty hard to explain at a High-school level.
I think out of the examples I presented, $1,2,3$ are probably the easiest to explain to high school students, and $3$ is perhaps the simplest example of a tensor whose "physical interpretation" can be explained at a high-school level (compared to $5$ which talks about the EM field strength tensor and stress-energy tensor, whose significance is I think much harder to explain).