We find the proposals in many respects educationally unsound and evidentially questionable. They are based on a flawed critique of existing arrangements and an overly selective response to international data. Their lack of serious educational rationale is confirmed by the decision to add an essentially cosmetic statement of aims after the priorities and content have been determined. They perpetuate some of the most damaging aspects of current and past arrangements, notably a curriculum which is divided not only in time but also as to quality and seriousness of purpose, especially where the arts and humanities are concerned. The proposals rightly prioritise knowledge but wrongly reduce it to unchallengeable proposition. They disregard both research evidence and expert opinion on matters such as spoken language and the teaching of reading, history and citizenship. They belittle or ignore aspects of cultural life and human development - such as drama, dance and the exploration of faith and belief - which ought to feature in any national curriculum. While claiming modernity they fail adequately to reflect the profound social and educational implications of the digital revolution ... We cannot disguise our sense of the immense gulf that exists between what, in terms of the quality of consultation, evidence and vision, the Government has effected and what the Cambridge Primary Review aspired to and achieved.