Schools were finally beginning to think about a world after levels, and then these descriptors come along.
Even those who would have been happy to keep levels seem to be of the view that these statements are worse. Rather than dealing with five or six levels across primary school we could end up with four or five for every year group.
Probably the reason we've got these descriptors is not for educational reasons but for accountability reasons. Frankly, I think that's the cause of most problems in education now.
I'd much rather see Ofsted responsible for accountability, underpinned by proper inspection, looking at real evidence and making judgements about quality of provision.
As it is, the performance data systems suggest that the Department for Education doesn't trust Ofsted to do that, or that it thinks Ofsted can only make judgements if that data is there to base them on (as schools suspect currently happens).
John Viner, primary school improvement adviser, Kent:
The descriptors, which are taken from the programmes of study, reinforce the ambitions of the government to produce a more rigorous and more challenging curriculum. The whole point of the new curriculum is to study fewer things at greater depth.
But I think the profession is struggling to change its thinking away from levels. Levels didn't really represent what a child was capable of, but these descriptors don't work.
I think the standards need to be consistent across all subjects, otherwise it's futile. Schools will struggle to make sense of this when key stage 1 looks like this and KS2 doesn't. I'd go for five standards: below; towards; at; above; mastery.
I'm hoping the number of elements in each standard won't become a tick-list because that would return us to the worst days of 1990. The consultation responses may tease it out and thin them down a bit.
I think we're on the edge of something exciting and we need to grasp this opportunity. We have got to take ownership of this as a profession. We can do it - I'm very optimistic.
Alex Hurle, former primary teacher and curriculum adviser with consultancy B Squared:
I don't understand the rationale behind having four different standards for most subjects at the end of KS1 but assessing children only as passing or failing the national standard at KS2. I don't think it will help parents or pupils to understand where they are going.
It needs some joined-up thinking. If a child is at mastery standard at the end of KS1 in maths then you want them to be mastery standard at the end of KS2, but that level does not exist. If they are "mastery" in writing at the end of KS1, they could make good progress but dip down to "above national standard". It's not uniform.
In schools, there is a lot of emphasis on feedback for children to help them take ownership of learning, and that's why levels to some degree made sense. They were not perfect, but you were able to show a child what they needed to do to progress.
Now children are going to be described as "below national standard" - that is a demeaning way to describe them.