What's missing are connections between the statements and what goes on in classrooms. Since the disciplines can't be combined to form a coherent structure of knowledge, it isn't possible for a unified statement of goals to emerge from them. The disciplines don't disclose the systemic nature of reality. It's possible to find all sorts of shared disciplinary territory upon which worthwhile interdisciplinary lessons can be built. Unfortunately, a comprehensive curriculum can't be fashioned from random conceptual intersections.
Reality is systemic.
In a truly integrated curriculum, everything relates to everything. Discipline-based curricula provide no criteria for determining the relative significance of various kinds of knowledge. Scholars steeped in their disciplines tend to see reality through the windows of those disciplines. Understandably, each is convinced that his or her perspective is the most important one. In the absence of criteria for settling disputes over which knowledge is of most worth, curricula tend to be shaped by tradition or by institutional politics.