This paper focuses on the review and subsequent revision of the primary curriculum that took place between 2010 and 2014. Three central contentions are made about the review process: (1) it ignored the need for dialogue and consensus among the various parties that make up the delicate and interlocking set of relationships in the English education system; (2) it at first purported to integrate the views of higher education and then ignored, marginalized, and dismissed them; and (3) despite claiming to be based on best practice in other "jurisdictions", it failed to take account of alternative views about approaches to curriculum innovation and instead focused on a limited and instrumentalist view that was treated as being uncontestable.