I saw it was going to get a little contentious last night & chose sleep over engagement with the polarised views and have been too busy today til now to add my two pennies worth ...
Firstly, thank you Hels71 - your DDs writing and reading are (IMO) comfortably at 2C, perhaps 2B/A for reading - which continues to support my theory that this is the level required for exceeding in some schools at least. Are you happy to share her maths ability and any of the others (I understand if not given that discussing such achievements causes consternation and indignation for some MNs)?
What is it specifically about academic subjects & children that riles people so much? Should parents say to children with a love and interest for maths, reading, writing or science, "no stop trying to read, put down that pen, what do you think you're doing asking me how things are made, about planets and space, about how your body works, doing sums in your head, don't use words like peculiar, consendation or occasionally - you're only 5, get back to your dolls/cars/bike/mud pie and only use age appropriate words?".
Some people do indeed hot house their children and apply the pressure referred to - but others do not and it is entirely possible for a child that finds it easy to learn to read / do maths / whatever / to do this and still spend most of their time 'playing' (in quotes because many children learn academics through playing games in any case).
People on this thread have been discussing the current system used to asses reception children, whether the bar for the way DCs are categorised has been raised too high and whether the categorisations are being applied consistently. No one here created the system, but it is the one being used. One way to check how it's being applied is for parents to share what their children are doing and the score that they received.
The reason that I have chosen to understand the current system is due to life experiences which have taught me a) that you should never assume that the mantle "professional" means infallible and b) that new systems set up by government to monitor children's progress should be closely scrutinised. I am not educated to degree level, in fact I don't even have A levels - the guidance makes sense to me but I don't think it's being applied correctly AND I think the measure should be how much progress a child makes not for the government to set some arbitrary bar that children must reach to achieve expected. However that doesn't mean that I think all children should be the same, some children struggle with many things, most children are good at some things and find other things hard, and some children excel at a few (or even many) things - why should any of their parents be frowned upon for discussing that here?
A friend of DD2s has been riding a bike without stabilisers since 3, her ballet dancing is way in advance of DD2s and her swimming is truly outstanding - I think wow, isn't that great and her mum is welcome to tell me all about it.. Meanwhile DD2 is struggling to balance on her bike, making progress slowly with her swimming and galumphing around at ballet having great fun! I celebrate her below average progress (objectively measured) with her in these areas just as much, actually more, than her 'academic' successes. We don't use the word clever - we do reinforce the idea that practice is how to improve if you want to get better at something. Do I always get it right - no, of course not, after all I'm just as fallible as the next person 
I do, however, apply the same level of concern regarding accuracy and consistency to DD2s ASD assessment - which is all about the areas in which she struggles. Given that I really don't feel I have anything to apologise for - even though I am sorry that some people find these kinds of threads depressing or full of insane people applying pressure to, by implication, sad faced DCs who have no fun and little time to enjoy their childhoods. 