Alice the problem I have with the new primary curriculum is not so much the content as the way in which there is no flexibility in which child learns what, and when, and how.
There is no allowance made for children developing at different rates. That is stupid, because children are not identical. Some will 'get' reading much earlier than others. Some will be mature enough for formal learning in Yr1, others will not. The timings of this curriculum will set some children up to fail from a very, very young age. This is a terrible shame because the majority of them will catch up in a great leap at some point. Learning just isn't a predictable linear thing, however much Gove might want it to be.
I also have nothing against learning poetry off by heart as an aid to training memory. Memory training is essential. However, in the current curriculum poetry seems to be the only acceptable way to do this. This is stupid. What's wrong with other ways of training memory which will appeal to different types of children? What's wrong with, say, learning the names of all the land dinosaurs from the Jurassic period? The Kings and Queens of England? The capital cities /rivers/deserts of the world? Memory training can be done in so many ways, ways which will engage *all children, not just those for whom reading and language come naturally. Once again, it's so narrow it's practically a corset.
As for times tables - if you understand numbers and the way they work then you don't need more than the 10 times table as everything else can be derived from it - though of course the mathematical patterns of higher number tables can be interesting to those children who have natural 'maths' brains. Once again, it's about flexibility.
As for GCSEs - what we've had so far is about the primary curriculum, not the secondary curriculum. I agree that teaching pupils how to structure an essay, build their argument and be creative in their thinking are all key. However, a fundamental shift in the way exams are assessed is going to be needed if this is going to come to pass. The current system where competing exam boards are allowed to exist (hey, free market economy!) undermines this. It allows schools to 'shop around' for the board that will give the best pass rates and schools do this because they are constantly micro-managed, league tabled and badgered by the government.
I come from the Dutch system - one exam board, no choice, run by the state, no money or profit involved. Everyone sits the same exams. Oh, and schools don't get the choice as to whether or not they enter a pupil for an exam. If the pupil is in an exam year and has chosen to do the subject, he/she sits the exam. That's how you get meaningful data. Essays are marked by the pupil's own teacher, and are then sent away to be marked again by another teacher who does not know the pupil. The mark is averaged. If the disparity is enormous, there are procedures for addressing this - but because every teacher knows this, it rarely happens.
I really don't trust Gove to introduce that kind of rigour, because it means the state taking responsibility for exams and there is no money to be made from that.