Most of what you say is spot on, but I take issue with your suggestion that "a good curriculum" will solve the problem. What is needed is /no/ set curriculum; it is in the nature of prescriptive documents to become fussier and more prescriptive over time (instruction creep), and it is only a matter of time before even the best-written curriculum devolves into a nightmare document that specifies exactly what lesson must be taught on exactly what day of the year, and hell mend any teacher who dares ignore it. (This is one of the things about the system which pushes the good teachers away.)

A good approach is that used by the Schedules of lecture courses at Cambridge: they are 'minimal for lecturing and maximal for examining'; they are also very short (about two decent-sized paragraphs for a 24-hour course). Obviously university lecturers can work out more for themselves than school teachers can - but that may well be because school teachers are not /trained/ to work anything out for themselves.

It may also be a good idea to get rid of standardised examinations; the exam-board system is a mess, with boards competing (essentially) on who can make their exams the easiest and thus attract more business from schools who want to move up the league tables. Employers know how to compare, say, a 2-2 at Cambridge to a First at Essex; why should the same not apply to school-leavers' results?