I will address this point by point.
That is a false statement. The reason inner city schools do not have extra-curricular activities, is not because they do not have the money for it. In succesful big cities like chicago and New York, schools actually spend a relatively high amount per student. The reason that there are not extra-curricular activities, is because public schools are liable if anyone is injured on school property after school. It is not a risk most inner city schools are willing to take, as they have a large number of high risk students.
It would be awesome if simply funding schools better made a significant difference. Sadly it does not. Some poor inner city schools could double their funding, and the increase in results would be minimal. The only accurate predictor for academic achievement is the socio-economic status of a student and their family. If a kid comes from a family that has a lot of money, he will do significantly better than kids from poor families. That is on average of course, as obviously some poor kids excel and some rich kids fail. This fact is best illustrated by kids who are in scattered housing. Recently in chicago many people in government housing have been moved out of the inner city, and into the suburbs. The kids who were moved often went to heavily funded, successful suburban schools, it made very little to no difference when it came to academic achievement.
As far as number 1, that is a ridiculous idea. People consistently say teachers should be paid more. Yet all sorts of people want to get rid of the teachers union. If you eliminate the body ensuring teachers salaries, pensions, benefits, etc. Many people who are now going into teaching will not do so. I am currently in school getting my degree in secondary education. I have very good grades, and I could do almost whatever I want, but I want to teach. If the union was not their, I would not teach, because the compensation now is not great, but it is good, and the pension in the state of illinois is pretty great.
2. National standards are almost always a bad idea. Educational issues should be dealt with on as local a level as possible. To have the same standards for a rich suburban school, and a poor inner city or rural school is not reasonable.
3. Again, same as before. The only accurate predictor of academic achievement is socio-economic status. Private school achievement tends to be higher than the average public school, that is true, but that is linked to the fact that people who can afford private school, usually have more disposable income. If you compare a rich suburban public school, to a poor inner city private school, the rich public school will massively outperform the private school. If you put a rich private school against a rich public school, they will tend to perform about the same.
4. As I have already pointed out, socio-economic status of students is the only accurate predictor of academic achievement, so the only real way to improve education would be to improve the welfare system.
5. Same as 2. Involving the federal government in educational issues is almost never a good idea.
Sorry for the extremely long response!!
PS. Sorry for derailing the thread. I just looked and remembered this thread is about the BNP!