The precise policy details might not apply in extremely different societies/political systems, but the high-level goals should be the same:
Highly qualified professional teachers with good career prospects and lots of personal responsibility and a culture of continuous professional development, adequate school infrastructure and materials, focus on the individual needs of diverse children, resource equality for students regardless of wealth or social class, work to solve child poverty and other severe social problems that prevent any education system from functioning.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-ame...
"...teachers are trained to assess children in classrooms using independent tests they create themselves. "
"All children receive a report card at the end of each semester, but these reports are based on individualized grading by each teacher."
"If a teacher is bad, it is the principal's responsibility to notice and deal with it."
"In Finland parents can also choose."
But it may be that the finnish model is slipping anyway:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/06/is-finland-a-choice-les...
"Finnish eighth-graders today perform slightly lower than seventh-graders did in 1999."
I give them two decades.
Some charter schools. A minority. Others are run like tiny military academies, or have gone all-in on high-stakes testing, or profit by relying on low-paid short-term teachers with high turnover, or are mainly financial schemes/scams with schools attached (cf. the alternet link a few posts upthread).
All of the bits you listed actually sound precisely like my southern California suburban public elementary school experience in the mid–late 1990s. Unfortunately the school got constant pushback from the school district and state for not being excited enough about letter grades or standardized tests, but was able to mostly persist its culture through support from local parents.
I think there's problems with that narrative too. The impact that good teachers can have on kids from very troubled homes is probably overstated, and teachers unions have often been fighting against performance rating systems that unfairly ignore that. But in defense of charters, a performance rating system that doesn't work won't survive very long in the private sector.
Edit: Perhaps a better question, that avoids the nasty politics of the current situation, is: what does the ideal system look like? My inclination is that it would look more like charter schools than like public schools.