Bit of a kerfuffle in my school at the moment re. levels - esp. maths and writing. Apparently some people feel they are receiving levels that are 'ahem' - unrealistic. Not by much, but perhaps a sub-level out. At my school, we have a PM target (for all teachers I think) that they move at least two thirds of the children in their class on two sub-levels each year in reading, writing and maths. I think the sub-level out thing is a combination of different ways of levelling (which we are working to rectify), different perceptions of how to use the APP grids (some people will give a level 5 if most criteria are highlighted, some won't unless it 'feels like a level 5' etc), and sheer panic about not making 'enough' progress - which of course is then creating a self-perpetuating problem. What do other schools do re. the two sub-levels targets? Do you find they are necessary/helpful/counter-productive? Our school wants professional honesty, but I can't help but feel people are always going to be tempted to inflate levels if this is one of their PM targets. What would actually happen if this target wasn't met? Should we be emphasising that the world won't cave in if children don't make enough progress?