Hi, Some niave questions, perhaps... (my lessons are beginning to be graded, and I would like some idea of what quality lessons the very best teachers actually achieve in practice)... I think I've seen plenty of (OFSTED) 'good' and 'outstanding' top-set Maths lessons. But I'm not sure whether I seen any such lessons for bottom-set groups. Always (even inevitably?) there seems to be at least one or two students in such a group who make inadequate progress (because, often, they a very unengaged for at least part of the lesson), and the lesson cannot therefore warrant a 'good' (as I understand it). It seems much easier to attain a 'good' or 'outstanding' lesson with a top set class than a bottom set. Is that right? It also seems much easier to attain a 'good' or 'outstanding' lesson if you're teaching a completely new topic (e.g. the immense scale of the solar system), rather than one (say on fractions, or algebra) that merely incrementally develops prior understanding, and so where 'progress' within the space of a single lesson is much harder to demonstrate. [I can imagine the same applying in, say, P.E. It would probably be much easier to gain an 'outstanding' for a one-off 'Archery' lesson than for a student's 1000th 'Football' lesson?]. So if the SoW happens to require that I teach 'incremental' topics more than new ones, and if I happen to be placed with many lower ability sets, is it likely to be 'harder' to get 'good' lesson observations? If so, the whole grading system seems to me to be not fit for purpose. Surely what's wanted / needed is a system that measures whether the teacher and school have done the very best possible job in helping students make progress on that particular topic, and for that particular class? Out of curiosity, (very) roughly, what percentage of lessons from an 'outstanding teacher' are actually 'outstanding'? How does the figure vary with the ability set of the students?