InTheDrunkTank
I see so the fact that the children you tutor have one experience must mean that your opinion on live lessons is totally relevant to the nation's state schools.
As ever on mumsnet, it's the privileged whining that they don't get to further entrench their privileges.
Your posts are very selective in how you present things and they all stem from a position of privilege:
I don't think there's any point a teacher recording a video lesson then they may as well use oak academy.
Good for you. Last time I checked teachers were more than capable of selecting resources that are appropriate to their classes. There's a fabulous Oak lesson that I would use, but it isn't flexible enough for my class so I'm not using it. Surely a teacher would understand this fairly basic fact.
The point of a live lesson is that it's interactive. There can be discussion between students, students can ask the teacher questions when they're stuck.
They can ask questions if they are stuck watching pre recorded material because many of the schools using pre-recorded material have staff signed into the platform all day
The children I've been tutoring often have missed out entire topics because they watched the prerecorded video, didn't understand it, couldn't answer the questions and that was that. They sometimes could send an email and get one back a day or two later which just raised further questions and it isn't resolved by the time to move on.
That is a problem of how individual schools manage remote learning, not the use of pre-recorded materials.
I can usually clear things up live with them in 10 minutes.
Of course you can. You are providing a service to those families who can afford to pay someone to tutor.
It may surprise you to hear that I also clear up misconceptions too, though surely a teacher would know that teachers can do this.
Works great for both my DC too. Teacher explains, kids ask questions if they're unsure. Then they're off screens doing the work. Teacher remains live so if they have questions they ask. Work gets marked to ensure they've really grasped it, if not they go over it again. Pretty much as it would happen in a class room.
All great, if you have a class where everyone has an appropriate device for all children to access the live lessons.
Care to enlighten me how some of my families should manage this like-for-like learning experience when they have an older phone that can'teasily access documents, one tablet that has to be used for a parent working from home and 3 children? Seriously, do explain to me how 3 children can access a full live lesson timetable.
Also a lot of real lack of logic going on here. Doing a live lesson doesn't stop children passively watching a video on oak academy afterwards.*
The lack of logic is assuming that watching a video is passive but having access to a live lesson is active.
It sounds like a throwback from teaching 2010-2015 where students listening to a teacher was a passive activity but get them all doing card sorts was active learning.
I tutor maths as part of the national catch up scheme and the students who haven't had any interaction with teachers are massively massively behind
Lack of contact with a teacher is different to having live lessons.
If they don't understand after watching the video once, they won't again
Again, an issue with how remote learning is facilitated, not the existence of live lessons
Even worse quite often they think they've understood but don't know why they can't answer the questions.
And that proves live lessons are better because...
Roughly speaking:
You have your opinion that live lessons are great and it's awful if students don't have them.
EEF have reviewed research and concluded that the quality of teaching, not the method of delivery, is the biggest factor affecting the success of remote learning.
But your opinion has more weight than extensive research reviews, right?