I'm just very concerned at how raw 'levels' (and 'two, three or four sub-level progress per year') are being used to 'demonstrate' students progress, and achievement. There's just seems so much inconsistency, manipulation, inherent error, and room for abuse as to make them highly over-valued. I don't think 'dishonest' is too strong a term for how I see them used. A specific example from my new (lower set) class. A student recorded as 'working at' level 5a, with EOY target of 6c, and with prior in-class 'test' results of 5b/5c/5b etc. has recently just scored level 3c in their 'proper', exam condition, SAT-like paper. Unsurprisingly (for us teachers), depending upon how the tests/assessments are performed, you can get wildly varying results. Attempting to 'average' these diverse assessment metrics to sub-level accuracy is, to me, increasingly ridiculous. [Or at least, the part that is increasingly ridiculous is the seriousness with which they are being taken]. But what's a better alternative?