Further on that Guardian article about pre-school assessments of children, we hear that children will be assessed upon respecting the beliefs of others.
"When children enter compulsory schooling, they should be able to read simple sentences using a phonics-based approach, count reliably up to 10 and sing simple songs from memory, as well as respecting others' beliefs and learning to share and take turns."
This apparently unqualified requirement (in red) either points to the tortured logic of moral relativism, in other words - will children be required to show this respect if a person believes that it is right to commit murder, or steal from or otherwise abuse others? Or it points to such a limited definition of the notion of respect as to render having it virtually useless and irrelevant, which, whilst not being a relativist problem, is still likely to be a problem, in that it is likely to lead to misunderstandings along relativist lines.
To demonstrate more clearly what I am trying to say on the matter of the potential for illogicality inherent in moral relativism, what, say, if a child doesn't want to be measured by all these standards? If you respect his belief properly, surely you would act on this respect for his belief and not appraise him according to these standards? If, on the other hand, you say you respect his belief, but are still going to appraise him, what is the point the notion of respect, and what is the point of teaching that children should have it for others?
It may be that this apparently unqualified call to moral relativism may be more accurately described in the original documentation. However, if this is indeed the case, it is not good enough to allow the press to put about such terribly misleading representations of what you want. Of course, I don't think you should be making these sort of requirements of your population in the first place, for all the reasons already stated, see here and here, but it is even more unforgiveable that the government should be putting about such apparently feel-good but at best utterly meaningless, at worst, hugely damaging pronouncements on how we formulate moral theories.