What works? Evidence for decision makers

The Cabinet Office has published What works? Evidence for Decision Makers, a report that details the progress of the new What Works centres, which cover education, early intervention, policing and more.

I'm not going to analyse the report in detail, because mostly it's a collation of existing material. However, like many of these collations, sometimes something gets lost in the editing process. The section on education (about the work of the Education Endowment Foundation) includes a short paragraph on the use of teaching assistants as tutors. Says the first sentence:

Small group tuition can be a cost-effective alternative to one-to-one tuition as a way to provide intensive support for struggling pupils.

But it's the second sentence that had me scratching my head.

This is true despite the fact that small group tuition is on average, slightly  less effective than one-to-one tuition, because it is also much less expensive.

I think I know what they meant to say, but I've read it several times and still can't make sense of it.

#weirddreams Catch-up

I bumped into an old work colleague. She hugged me and gave me a kiss on the cheek. I think she might have had a few drinks, because she kissed me a few more times on the cheek. She explained that the company was now made up of many layers, and she illustrated this by putting her hands horizontally, on top of each other, again and again. The company had appointed a number of people from Guy Vets. She said this as if it was supposed to mean something. Just then we were approached by a group of men who were paralysing people. They did it simply by pouring a tiny amount of some liquid into your ear. They did it to me and, almost immediately, while I was still conscious, I could no longer move my limbs. I had to wake myself up to escape.