Year 1 phonics screening check training video

Y, e, d, yed. The child sounds out the letters and then correctly blends them
to the non-word yed. Y, a, d, yade. She uses the wrong sound value
for the vowel letter. Yed. Children do not have
to sound out the letters before saying the word or non-word. Emp. E-m-p. There is a pause between each letter
being sounded out and therefore the non-word
has not been blended sufficiently. Empt. The child has added an extra sound
to the non-word. Emp. Sheb. Sh, e, p, ship. The child
has confused the letter B with P and then incorrectly
pronounced a real word, ship. Sh-eb. The child has elongated
the initial phoneme but given an acceptable blend. Sh-e… Sh, e, p. Sh, e, b. Sheb. The child make several attempts
to sound out the letters but eventually blends correctly. M, u, z, z, muzz. M, o, z, z, mozz. The child has pronounced the U
with her accent. R, oo, p, t, roo-p-t. Though the child
has sounded out the phonemes, he has not
fully blended the non-word and has left a gap
between the final two phonemes. Roo-pt, roopt. The child has self-corrected. You should always score
the final attempt made by the child even where they end
with an incorrect response and a previous attempt
has been correct. R, oo, p, t, roops. The child sounds out correctly but then blends
to the incorrect non-word, roops. Path. The child uses the long vowel sound
‘ar’ which is within her accent. P, a, th, path. This child uses the short vowel sound
‘a’ which is within her accent. P, a, th, pash. This child sounds out correctly
but then confuses the digraph and pronounces pash instead of path. B, a, th, bath. This child
uses the long ‘ar’ vowel in bath. Children can use any acceptable
regional pronunciation even if it’s not
within their usual accent. Bath. B, atch, bath, bath. This child
initially reads the wrong word and then self-corrects
and repeats herself. B, a, th, bath. The child sounds out b, a, th,
and then blends to bath which often occurs
in six-year-old speech and is a feature
of a number of accents. S, t, art, star. The child sounds out s, t, art,
then reads star with no plural. Stars. The child’s articulation
of the S phoneme does not detract
from her correct response. Starts. The child has substituted the
visually similar real word start for the printed word stars. Shelf. Sheef. In blending the child has omitted
the sound for the letter L and produced the name
of the vowel letter E rather than its sound. Sh, e, l, f, shelf. Doy. D, o, y, doy. Although she gives a sound value
to the letter Y when initially sounding out,
she correctly pronounces doy with the oy sound
for the OY digraph. D, o, y, dog. The child sounds out
each individual letter and then reads a visually similar
real word, dog. Vead. The child reads a regular
pronunciation of the EA digraph as ee. Yed, ved, ved. He initially pronounces the V as yh
but immediately self-corrects using the acceptable alternative
eh sound for the EA digraph. Vead. Veyed. Although alternative
pronunciations of digraphs are allowed in non-words,
this child uses the ay sound which is not a plausible regular
pronunciation for the EA digraph. V, e, a, d, vad. The child sounds out each letter and
then selects just one vowel sound ‘a’ which is incorrect. Jound. The child correctly uses ow
for the OU digraph. J, o, u, n, d, jond. The child gives the wrong sound value
‘o’ for the OU digraph. Splook. The child gives the wrong sound
value ‘oo’ for the vowel letter O. Sp, l, oo… spoke. After sounding out,
he reduces the cluster to ‘sp’ and uses the letter name O
instead of the sound ‘oh’ to give the real word, spoke. Splog. S, p, l, ok, splok. Scrop. The child uses the short ‘o’ sound
and therefore doesn’t recognise and pronounce the split digraph
O consonant E. Scrope. Sc, r, o, p, e, scropee. The child sounds out every letter and then gives the final E
a phoneme value rather than recognising
the split digraph O consonant E. Blow. Bl-ow, blow. The child initially pronounces
the word to rhyme with cow but recognises
that this is not a real word and self-corrects to blow. B, l, ow, bl-ow. The child sounds out b, l, ow,
then blends to bl-ow, thus producing a non-word. Ow is an alternative pronunciation
for the OW digraph but not in this word. P, i, n, e, pine. Pin. The child uses the short ‘ih’ sound instead of recognising
the split digraph I consonant E. Thrill. The vowel sound
is within the child’s accent. Th, r, ill, frill. The child correctly
sounds out the digraph but then blends
using fr instead of thr. This is a common feature
of six-year-old speech which also features
in a number of accents. Baker. Bak, bak-er. Although plausible, the child has not
pronounced the real word correctly. P, l, a, s, t, i, c, sploik. The child sounds out each letter but is unable to blend successfully
across the two syllables. P, l, a, s, t, i c, plastic. Plastic. Though she sub-vocalises
for a long time, she does get there and blends
all the sounds to the correct word.

48 thoughts on “Year 1 phonics screening check training video”

  1. 1. What the hell does this tell me about my children that I don't already know?
    2. This example video is flawed as children a usually encouraged to point at the word when reading.

    All this does for me is take me out of the class for a day and cost the school money in supply costs. Money we don't have.

    Our children are the most tested in Europe, I hope they forgive us when they al grow up. And I hope Gove gets his comeuppance!

  2. Interesting how young brains instinctively try to make sense even out of something that has no meaning. They reason that every word must mean something, for that is the purpose of language. You can almost hear the trauma in the neurons: "they want us to say what.?!"

    Instead they're being asked to recite utter drivel, meaningless crap, so this droning clerical oik can tick her box and get her pension. Take kids out of schools like this – how dare they damage young brains like this!

  3. All previously unencountered words are meaningless, and, for young children, that's a lot of words. Do you think finding a new word in a book damages them, too?

  4. This video shows teachers trying to convince children to pronounce utter nonsense.

    The children use a healthy sense of order to try to make sense of the gibberish in the context of what they know – feeling certain that teachers would not put them through such a lunatic, meaningless charade and waste everyone's time.

    Buit those kids have a lot to learn about the education system; soon they will fnid out why so many people leave school unable to read and write. Bravo

  5. I don't understand what you're driving at. Both words and pseudo-words (a.k.a. nonsense words) can be used to have children practise turning letters into sounds. I just can't see what's wrong with that – what am I missing here?

  6. You need to look at the literacy rates for children taught these methods. Some teachers even think dyslexia is nothing more than a reaction to these backwards methods!

  7. Sure, check ThePhonicsPage -"Sight words do not promote left to right reading because when memorizing words as a whole, the eye jumps all around the word. Too many words taught as wholes by sight encourages the development of dyslexia. Pictures and words are processed on different sides of the brain. Not only do sight words encourage incorrect eye movements, they also confuse the brain, which research has shown reads words sound by sound."

  8. But… phonics teaching and the phonics test is all about reading sound by sound. You break up the word into its constituent sounds and then blend them together into a word. It is the exact opposite of teaching words as wholes by sight. The quotation you have just given supports the kind of teaching exemplified by the video!

  9. Well, actually not; sounding out letter by letter trains a left to right approach. But taking a nonsense chunk and telling the child to pronounce them in isolation, you can actually see the child's brain racing to try and figure out what to do. He has no method which allows him to unravel the nonsense. The final nail in this coffin is the extremely high rate of "dyslexia" in children "taught" this way: you can't give a brain nonsense chunks, and then expect the child to derive sense from it.

  10. These are not words! How can you be so dense? Vead! Sheb! Roopt! The child is assigning brain space as if they are words. The child is taking everything in and now he has memories and practice of reading not real words, which would help him, but Vead Roopt Sheb Emp Yed Splok.

    How about this: as the system is bent on wasting their brain power, let's teach them to practice speaking utter gibberish! What did you learn today at school dear? "Sheb Vead Roopt Yed Emp Splok!"

  11. The use of pseudo-words ensures that the child is decoding left-to-right. rather than relying on whole-word recognition. You should be happy about that!

    No need to call other people dense, though – I actually think it's you that needs to find out a little bit more about what phonics is.

  12. What Kavafy has stated below is correct. A life skill of decoding ANY word, familiar or unfamiliar, is what the point is. We mustn't decide some word makes sense or doesn't based on our adult vocabulary familiarity. To a 5-6 yr old apparently simple words could very well be nonsense.
    Once the skill is clearly established, sky is the limit for reading!

  13. My observation is that linguistic confusion about phonics is not uncommon even amongst 'phonics experts'. The first nonsense word the child is asked to say, 'yed', does not occur with the ‘e’ grapheme pronounced as the phoneme /e/ anywhere in English! It only occurs word finally in words such as eyed and played.  There is one minor exception in the compound word copyedit but that doesn't really count. The principle of testing phonic decoding using nonsense words is not wholly wrong (if that is all one is trying to test) but the pseudo words should at least occur within the phonology of the language.

  14. Oh wow. This is child abuse. It has NOTHING to do with literacy. So many errors and misconceptions, it would require a long essay to address them.

  15. The UK Phonics Check has already been identified and criticised by numerous academics and literacy experts in the UK and Australia for having a flawed testing methodology. It does not test for phonemic awareness and risks red-flagging the wrong children while overlooking those who may benefit from early intervention.

    1) There are children in this video who demonstrate good phonic knowledge who are marked ‘incorrect’.

    2) There are children who incorrectly synthesise real words but upon providing the correct pronunciation are marked ‘correct'.

    3) There are children who provide perfectly plausible phonic pronunciations for pseudo-words who are marked ‘incorrect’.

  16. BEST THING EVER TEEHEEH LOVE IT❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😃😃😃😃😁😅😅😅😆😆😎😎😍😆😆😆

  17. Has anyone ever thought about starting there life again and being really smart and getting A's on everything and because you screwed up your life the first time i think about it every day.

  18. This is ridiculous they are not even words 😠 we expect way to much from our kids at this age in the UK.

    She pronounces the I with her accent? What the help is she supposed to sound like….

  19. I work in KS1, so many of you are wrong. Phonics is so important. Children who sit the phonics test would not even be aware that they are sitting a test, it's delivered like a normal lesson and you mark of the words as they read them. They wouldn't even find out their score.

  20. In the age of meaningful learning, this stark example of Pavlovian conditioning is quite shocking to see.

  21. This is so Orwellian. What are we doing to our kids. I've just come from a session at my children's school. Instinctively this feels detached and cold. Reading for me was always about warmth via my parents reading me stories and flights of imagination where my own reading was concerned. This is  like asking a kid to describe an animal it's never seen, such as a frog, by liquidising the frog in a blender and then asking the child to describe the living animal. This dissection down to detached and isolated parts is alien. I think phonics is fine but it should be in conjunction with engaging stories and narrative.

  22. The whole language brigade has clearly never learnt a foreign language, read literature dense with unfamiliar words, read si fi full of invented words, or even read a Dr Seuss book out loud.

  23. hi everyone ,if anyone else wants to discover teaching five year old to read try Pronto Learner Compendium (do a google search ) ? Ive heard some decent things about it and my colleague got cool results with it.

  24. The government committee were on their second case of taxpayer funded wine when they came up with this abstract gem of 'phonics'.

Leave a Reply
