The way I see it, is that primary education at the moment suits the middle class child, with well-educated parents, very well indeed.
These parents will do the reading with the child that the teacher can't. They will rehearse/chant/rote the times tables that there may not be time in class. They will correct their spelling and punctuation when teachers don't. They will help with the boring homework sheets that they didn't do at school because they were too busy dressing up or role playing or debating or being lovely and rounded.
However, for the children who don't have parents like that, this system is a disaster. Children with chaotic lives, overworked, exhausted, even don't-care parents, who aren't listened to, aren't practised at tables, can't complete the homework, and basically get set up for failure.
A "return to basics" at school would not mean abandoning the lovely rounded part: or not all of it. It would mean ensuring that the basics are taught to children first and foremost: in a way that does not require any parental input at all. In a class of thirty, that may well mean techniques that teachers have to work harder to make interesting.
Sitting in rows is generally not boring and restrictive unless the teacher is dull. It may be boring not to be able to talk to your friends but that is entirely the point.
If these things were dealt with at school, if more traditional methods were encouraged, perhaps teachers might be more bored. But I doubt it. Teaching has moved on so much in forty years, it's inevitable that the interesting, the integrated, the engaging and the motivating forces will be retained.
But it will mean children from disadvantaged backgrounds will have a school that could actually rescue them from failure.