The second is that you have proposed no measurable way to determine if the students have learned anything. Standardized tests are bad, in the same way democracies are bad. There just hasn't been any better way demonstrated. I'd love to ditch the stress of standardized testing. However, I've got nothing else to measure, in any objective way, student learning. Essays? Standardized tests that measure vocabulary (parental income) and attention span. Orals? Not at all objective. Give me something to use.
Please be aware that this is mostly a US-only problem and has been solved better in other education systems. The solution is pretty simple: Measure individual learning progress, not knowledge relative to other classmates.
Suppose we have two kids entering school, the class has a really passionate and able teacher. Their performance (let's say their reading ability) gets measured. The average in the class is 100%.
Now, the low income kid really only starts with a performance level of say 50%, while the high income kid already has 150%.
Now a year later the class gets grades on their reading performance. 100% is rated F, because relative to the average on day one it means zero progress. 150% means grade A, a big improvement compared to day one.
The low income kid really learned hard, the passionate teacher gave special training to the kid etc. The kid managed a phenomenal progress up to 100%, 50% increase!. The teacher in the current US system: "Awesome! But still Grade F, sorry.". The high income kid gets a A without needing to do anything.
The end result: _Both_ loose their motivation to do anything in school.