`We`re not teaching facts.`

Compare this with an advert for jaffa cakes and what`s the difference?

Raising awareness of global citizenship, getting a `bit of everything`, debating and feeling empowered to make a difference and all of this `evolving from what they did in the classroom` is presented to us as the crowning glory of CfE.  It sounds great but in terms of learning what does it actually mean?

The parent in the video assures us that `getting down to the nitty gritty areas` is still part of the curriculum: that is, there are still some subjects being taught. Some of us might heave a sight of relief at this point. She goes on to assure us that there is a good balance but it is never explained to us why there needs to be a balance between these two opposing strands in the curriculum.

Nothing is defined, of course, because this is an advertisement for Curriculum for Excellence.

Some teachers see through it:

• (1)"The old curriculum was already preparing learners to be effective contributors etc. Now in schools we are wasting time talking about how we are developing rather than actually learning things."
  
  (2)"I personally would like my curriculum to be more aspirational than serving the needs of the economy and the charlatans who exploit the poor to make a massive tax free profit."
  
  (3)"Arrangements for subjects lack any depth in their descriptions. For instance, I have to teach about "processors". What about them? That they exist? What they do? How they work? What sub-components they have? How they work? I don’t know. When posed with this question, the senior assessor – the person responsible for setting the exam – stated (in front of an audience of approximately 250 Computing teachers) "We’re not teaching facts, we’re teaching Curriculum for Excellence... "http://www.moshblog.me.uk/2014/06/07/curriculum-for-excellence-or-excrement

 
The blurb below the video gives us an indication of the project the children are engaged in:

"The United Nations: The Girl Effect - An example of student-led interdisciplinary learning, looking at global issues. "
 
Here`s the message:
 
"A growing body of data and studies have shown that supporting girls and women – promoting their education, their health and safety, their right to plan their families, and more – correlates with healthier families, higher family incomes, economic development, and environmental sustainability. For example, studies have found that: All of this promotes more productive and stable countries – enhancing global prosperity and security and benefiting us all. "

http://www.unfoundation.org/news-and-media/publications-and-speeches/the-girl-revolution.html
 
Simplistic is hardly the word for it.   
It is the UN depopulation agenda which has an uglier face: For example, in the 1970s the Indian government forcibly sterilized millions of women against their will. China introduced its one-child policy in the 1980s. The overt depopulation strategy has been replaced by an agenda centred on getting girls and women into education and work and increasing access to birth control, so delaying childbirth.
 
Here are the big global players behind the `Girl Effect:`

UKaid, Nike Foundation, American Jewish World Service, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Population Council, Save the Children, United Nations Foundation, UNICEF, US Aid, World Bank - to mention just a few.

http://www.girleffect.org/about/

 
The children are not provided with the history, politics, economics, science and other tools to analyse the data. The `Girl Effect` is presented to them as a `given`.  So this is propaganda, not education  -  and the curriculum has been altered drastically to allow it.