We are now at a critical point in its introduction, yet some of the key stakeholders – not least teachers themselves – are still less than fully convinced of its merits.One correspondent to the Herald described CfE as ‘the most ill-conceived, ill-thought out, ill-described ragbag of empty verbiage and feel-good platitudes that I have encountered in 27 years of teaching’.

Why should this be so? After all, the idea dates back to 2004 and there has been plenty of opportunity to promote the principles behind it. Most teachers can recite the mantra of the ‘four capacities’ at the centre of the proposals – successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens – but, beyond that, they struggle to articulate an underlying philosophy.

We would suggest that part of the reason is that the political basis of the reforms has been insufficiently explored.

A political vision lies buried beneath the surface of any school curriculum. Governments seek to ensure that education systems deliver the knowledge, skills and attitudes required to promote a particular interpretation of economic life and community wellbeing.

It is surprising that commentators on CfE have not enquired into or debated the political philosophy which it expresses. Nor have they questioned whether the society it seeks to create is desirable.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, has described CfE as “the biggest transformational development in Scottish education for decades”.

Critics take a different view. Professor Lindsay Paterson of Edinburgh University has attacked the ‘vacuousness’ of the reforms. Writing in the Times Educational Supplement for Scotland he has also suggested that their anti-intellectual bias may undermine many of the achievements of comprehensive education.

Another prominent critic has been Keir Bloomer, who was a member of the review group which produced the original proposals. He has bemoaned the reliance on well-rehearsed slogans when what is needed is vision and forward planning. By contrast, government ministers and officials regard CfE as a sound basis for educating the next generation of Scots.

So what is the political basis for CfE? Significantly, it shifts the focus from knowledge of academic disciplines to a programme which seeks to deliver work and life skills. During its development, employers argued for a new emphasis upon competences, not knowledge of traditional subjects.

This was linked to arguments about the importance of employee flexibility and the need to respond to global economic forces. Belief in the possibility and desirability of continuous economic growth is an unquestioned tenet in this interpretation. What is absent is any proper consideration of the basis of existing inequalities in society and the best means of redressing them.

This goes some way towards explaining the vagueness at the heart of CfE. Instead of exploring first-order questions about the kind of society we want to create, it concentrates on second-order questions of implementation.

Teachers are encouraged to ask ‘how?’ but not ‘why? Asking ‘why?’ would expose the contested nature of the political assumptions that underpin CfE, particularly at a time when public trust in financial and corporate leaders is at an all-time low.

People might begin to realize that the four capacities have the imprint of aims and values that serve the interests of the business sector rather than any broader conception of the public good. The focus has been on the ‘experiences’ and ‘outcomes’ which teachers are expected to ‘deliver’, rather than on the underlying rationale of the whole exercise.

That the capacities are merely sketched, and not incorporated into a deeper and more culturally nuanced vision of the good society, is a cause for concern, especially in a pluralist democracy.

CfE flies the flag of the free market and corporate values. Despite its claims to represent a revolution, it signals continuity of thinking with Tony Blair’s New Labour project and even with some aspects of Thatcherism. Moreover, it is in serious danger of neglecting established bodies of knowledge and the wisdom they contain.

It appropriates American trends by favouring a highly adaptable but compliant labour force, who will follow orders rather than reflect on the reasons behind them. It facilitates the growth of employees rather than citizens - employees who will lack the mental tools to evaluate critically the competitive culture into which they will be incorporated.

The four capacities may aggravate existing fissures in society. What is needed is a curriculum which helps youngsters to acquire the ideals and underlying dispositions upon which social solidarity and collective action depends.

CfE will not promote a more egalitarian society, nor will it undermine poverty cycles because of its commitment to shallow materialism and corporate expansionism.

The goal is to deliver a society that will generate wealth, but not necessarily in a fairer fashion or in a way that strengthens democracy.

Despite its rhetoric of opportunity and excellence, it is unlikely to reverse the legacy of social exclusion built up during the post-Thatcher era under New Labour. Deeper thinking about the nature and purpose of the curriculum is required if we genuinely believe that one of functions of education is to produce a healthy, diverse and just democratic society.

Chris Holligan is senior lecturer in education at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS). Walter Humes is research professor in education at UWS.