If the Government wants to improve primary education, Sir Jim Rose's report is not the answer. In fact it is not clear what question could possibly be answered by making the curriculum more jargon-laden, obscure and alienating for parents who should be holding schools to account. Some of the subject areas laid down half a century ago may be past their prime. But to throw them all out in favour of six “themes”, adding the redundant word “understanding” to each (as in “understanding physical health and well-being”), is a recipe for misunderstanding. Sir Jim praises rigour. But his initiative will be used to blur lines and lower standards.

At the heart of this report lies a belief that computer learning is the fourth “R”, as important as reading, writing and arithmetic. Technology is an enormously useful tool that can make learning much more vivid and enjoyable. But it makes no sense to argue that children should be learning more computer skills early, because they are already so competent. The report expresses concern that primary-age children have poor verbal communication skills. It seems unlikely that those will be solved by sitting at a keyboard.

Allied to the primacy of computers is the idea that discrete subject areas, and the memorisation of facts, should play a less central role. It is quite possible that some schools may be overdoing the rote learning. But the wonders of Google are no substitute for knowledge. The argument is that a generation that is used to jumping from one thing to another on the web needs a “cross-curricular” approach. But if that encourages even more distraction and even less focus, it will create pupils who know nothing except how to click.

The function of primary school is to teach children how to learn. That means knowing enough facts to develop a sensible hypothesis about the world. It means progressively mastering a series of tasks that build up to knowledge. It does not mean the kind of passive downloading that universities have become so concerned about. Sir Jim says that he is not proposing a return to the 1970s, when topics and themes left many pupils bereft of knowledge. But the enthusiastic welcome given to his proposals by certain parts of the teaching profession, which have delighted in proclaiming an end to teachers barking out facts, suggests that what he intends as a rigorous curriculum will end up as a watered-down muddle.

The chairman of the primary committee of the National Association of Head Teachers has told The Times that children “do not need to know how to recognise a Picasso or a Van Gogh. They need to be able to look at a painting and see what techniques are used and why.” So independently educated children will know how to recognise great painters, and state-educated ones will be deprived of that joy. Independent schools will continue to teach subject knowledge as early and in as much depth as possible, like schools in Asia that top the international rankings. State schools will make their pupils ever more dependent on individual teachers' decisions about what seems “relevant”.

Sir Jim is rightly concerned to make education more engaging for children who do not currently see the point. He is right to want teachers to explain, as much as possible, the practical application of lessons. But there is no need to pander to fads for wellbeing and technology. In Britain, most attempts to make education more “accessible” have resulted in making it easier. This Government has talked about raising standards: but changing standards is not raising them. With Britain slipping down international education league tables, there has never been a more dangerous time to espouse understanding at the expense of knowledge. Our children need both.