It's not really a conflict. The conflict is with states' constitutions mandating compulsory education attendance by illegal aliens. The question then would be, do state constitutions violate federal law by a) mandating compulsory education attendance by illegal aliens and b) paying for their education costs under such a mandate. Under Plyler vs Doe, if you remove them from compulsory education, you can remove them from free education, but you would have to remove them in a non-discriminatory manner that's shown not to have a bias based on national origin. That's why if you limit the mandate to citizens and green card holders, excluding all others including visa holders, that group is broad enough and diverse enough not to show a national origin bias.

At the time of Plyler vs Doe, which involved a very southern next to the border community in Texas, all of the illegal aliens in question were Mexicans from Mexico, so that construed as a potential national origin bias. Our laws also prevent the Catch 22 scenario, which also applied in this case based on the mandate, and was the compelling argument that resulted in Plyler vs Doe, which is you can't mandate an action that results in an unfair penalty by complying with the mandate. In other words, if attending school is required regardless of who you are in Texas, which it was and is, then you can't penalize illegal aliens by complying with your law, especially if they are all from one country, that can be argued as a national origin bias.

Also, under the US Constitution, states have the right to admit immigrants, balanced against the right of the federal government to prohibit such immigration after 1808. A lot of people make the mistake of believing that controlling immigration is solely a "federal responsibility", no it isn't. Any state can limit immigration into their borders under the US Constitution, as well as allow whomever in. States have the inherent constitutional right and authority to do both. The federal government has the right to prohibit the immigration, and the power to remove the illegal aliens and punish those who violate the law, except where they are duplicitous. For example, currently, the federal government is actively underwriting and participating in the education of illegal aliens with their federal education payments of $1,000 or so a student, regardless of immigration status. So how can the federal government start arresting local school officials who are merely a) complying with their own state constitutions and b) being supported financially by the federal government for doing so?

What the federal government can and should do is a) stop sending federal payments to states for illegal alien students and b) start conducting ICE raids at schools to remove illegal alien students, parents/sponsors/families from the country. Same with hospitals and churches.

Once that is all in play, THEN you can start arresting local school officials for admitting illegal aliens into public schools. Otherwise, the courts aren't going to support it, without likewise calling for someone to arrest all the federal government employees involved with sending federal payments to the states to fund the very activity the feds are saying is "illegal" under Section 1324.

Courts despise absurdity of situations, but they hate hypocrisy even more. So the federal education payment issue has to be addressed first, then enforcement of 1324 at all locations including schools. Meanwhile, states who want to solve this problem and protect their own school personnel should get busy fixing their state constitution language regarding compulsory attendance.