EYFS age stages/points, do they correlate then?

[Iamnotminterested]

On entry to reception do the nursery "working in x to x months stage" bands relate at all to the 1-9 scores given at the end of reception?

Have googled but there seem to be reams and reams of stuff to eade through! Can any early years/ reception teachers give a succinct answer? Thanks.

Correlate them how? What is is you want to know?

Not sure exactly what you mean- can you rephrase the question a bit?
The assessments & information gathered when observing children in relation to the "development matters' listed in connection with the age bands, will be used when making a final assessment.

Keep in mind the document will be changing in September :)

OK: I have read on MN that the 'average' child enters reception on point 3 of the EYFS, does that 3 = working in the 30-50 month age band? And on that premise, would a child in the 40-60 month age band be entering reception on point, I dunno, 5 or 6??

There can be almost a year in age gap for some children starting reception, some have just turned 4 and some are almost 5. So the age bands help us to determine whether this child is achieving below expectations, as expected, or above expectations. It is just a guide. So for a child that is 52 months, I would expect them to be achieving mostly in the 40-60 age bracket, and would be concerned if they were not hitting any of these development points without an identified reason (maybe they speak English as an additional language for example)

So when you say average, yes I guess so. But there is a little more to it than that, because the information needs to be considered in context of the individual child & setting (their chronological age, any special needs or consideration that impact on learning & development, were they full-time, did they have good attendance etc...) I would think of the assessments as guidance for of how the teacher needs to work with that child, rather than an explicit assessment of the child. Because the information is not complete without context.

To expand on this further- when we look at the curriculum area CLL (Communication, language and literacy) You might have a child who can talk in the most complex and complete sentences and picks up vocabulary & understanding of language very quickly. However they are not yet interested in writing or reading. This gives very mixed observations of skill for this one area, for making an assessment. The assessment needs context to be accurate rather than just saying this child is "achieving below expectation for CLL".

From September the curriculum will divide Communication and language from literacy, so this will become less of an issue. Hopefully it highlights that the assessments are only one piece of a very complex puzzle (your child's development & how it relates to the curriculum!) and you should exercise caution when interpreting a single piece of data.

In essence don't worry so much about the points. Listen to the feedback that the teacher gives you about your child. If they don't give much ask questions. If there is an area that you are concerned about- post it here, I can help you form some questions to get at what you need to know to support your child further :)

Thanks for the reply teacherlikesapples, and for taking the time to post . I don't have any concerns about my DD (Well, nothing major anyway), I am just curious, as she was reported as being in the 40-60 month band for everything on her last nursery report whereas other older children that I know had mostly 30-50. As DD is an April birthday, can I assume then that she - and I know that perceived ability at age 4 is no long-term indicator of future academic success - is at the moment exceeding expectations?

Without knowing anything else about your child or other children, the qualifications of the people that assessed her and how they arrived at their judgements. It is really hard to say why they would give your child those "grades" and not others.

I would expect that a child in my class aged 52 months (as your child is now) should be in the 40-60 bracket, unless there was any other contributing factors.
I might put them in a 30-50 if there was a few key points holding them back, but I would add some notes with my assessment to give context. What support we had in place to move them forward on those areas.

40-60 is a huge age bracket, and your child's chronological age bracket is right in the middle of it. Because of that I would say based only on her chronological age she is as expected. To achieve the 40-60 tick (assuming the people assessing her had sufficient knowledge & training for the assessment tool) she needs to be achieving the majority of those developmental matters points the majority of the time. So I would be pretty happy that she was in a place that she was obviously thriving.