The closest I can get to right-wing agrees that problem kids in schools are a problem to other students, but completely rejects their "solutions". I say we should fix the problems so that when you put EVERY American child in public schools together, they all get an education that is one of the best in the world, insightful, rigorous, and pluralist, suiting some combination of their most proficient gifts and their desired development, with the assumption that they will make the world of work fit them, rather than adapt to what employers demand of them.
Okay, enough of that.
Being more pragmatic, it usually looks best to me to start at the bottom, and fix the worst problems, and alleviate the worst suffering, then let improvements ripple up the system. If something else becomes an important problem, of course it should be addressed. Like right now, it seems impossible to address lots of important problems with the poor and barely above poor without addressing the problem of the 1%, unfair distribution of the world's resources, and the corruption of the current system.
You can argue that there's no legitimate reason for the social class of one's parents to control the quality of PUBLIC education available to one, but it's really hard to separate "quality" from "diversity". If the money for education all gets distributed equally, how much of it is available for elective things that one community but not another might be interested in? Or should it all go to statewide necessities, with no elective funds, and no opportunity for communities to address their own needs? How do you keep "different" from becoming "separate and unequal"?
The problem with using law to control behavior is that it's really easy to prohibit something, or to require something, but it's really hard to optimize something.
= new reply since forum marked as read