The latest findings from Cambridge University's huge review of the state of English primary schools decry pupils' literacy abilities.
According to the Primary Review researchers, kids are no better at reading now than they were in the 1950s. This is despite the £500m the government has spent on introducing its national literacy strategy.
Not only that, but the national curriculum tests - or Sats as they are more commonly known - have supposedly led to schools "teaching to the test" and increased stress and anxiety among the children who have to pass them.
Schools minister Andrew Adonis gave a repetitious defence of the government's record this morning. On the BBC's Today programme, he said (over and over again) that primary standards are at their highest ever levels. And it is only since the national curriculum tests were introduced that there is solid evidence of consistent improvement that has been validated "many times" by independent experts.
"Ofsted said that the literacy strategy has brought about a transformation in the teaching of reading," he countered, and proclaimed the government's more personal approach - providing extra one-to-one tuition and reading recovery programmes, free books for young children and 11-year-olds, special boys' bookshelves in school libraries, and next year's national year of reading.
With the evidence providing polar opposite views on the standards of English primary schools, it's difficult to judge who's right. But in an age of TV, PlayStations, Facebook and mobile phones, it seems something, at least, that children still do read at all, and certainly not at a worse level than post-war.
And the Cambridge researchers do concede that England does pretty well in international terms - outperforming plenty of other developed countries in reading, science and even maths.
But even so, if the tests that the government says show things have improved are traumatising children, are they really worth it?
