Some time just before I was born, someone decided the metric system might by a good idea for money and measurement. Why did the 'brains' who devised the National Curriculum not think this may be a good model to adopt? We are told that children should make about 2 sub-levels progress per year. Based on a child attaining 2b at KS1 SATs and 4b at KS2, that's 2 levels over 4 years, which is half a level per year. But sub-levels are in thirds! So actual expected progress should be 1 and a half sub-levels per year. The current levelling system is as bad as pounds shillings and pence (apologies to anyone who had to learn that system but what a waste of time). The simpler you make a process, the more effective it can be. So to my point. Why do they not rewrite the levels to correspond to years in school? A Y4 child would be expected to attain Level 4, Y6 would by Level 6. Furthermore we could sub-level by term (Autumn is C, Spring is B, Summer is A). Everyone would be able to see where pupils were at in relation to expected attainment. Not that I'm in favour of much of the sytem anyway, but at least this way would be clearer and simpler.