China is a far more formidable adversary that Russia ever was. Both countries industrialised with western technology, but unlike Russia, which has stagnated, China has taken western technology to develop a self-sustaining system which is now competing (fairly and often unfairly) on technologically equal terms.
The research by University College London’s Institute of Education found that secondary school pupils in England with previously strong maths performances made slower progress in mixed-attainment classes than when they were taught alongside children with similarly high ability.
Crucially, the study backed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) showed that setting by ability did not “significantly harm the attainment of low-prior-attaining or socioeconomically disadvantaged” pupils.
The study’s impact analysis showed negative effects on self-confidence in maths for pupils in mixed-attainment schools, compared with those in schools using setting – challenging previous reports that setting harms the confidence of those outside the top sets.
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics at UCL, who has studied the effects of mixed-ability classes but was not involved in the new research, described the outcome as “big and important”.
“The EEF have spent huge amounts of money investigating this issue. I think they should probably now come out and support achievement grouping in maths,” Jerrim said, arguing that “it has no negative impact on lower-achievers, some positive benefits for high-achievers, and helps teachers manage workload”...
That's a polite way of saying that mixed ability classes hamper the progress of the high achievers.
British people like to think that both Britain and America are "poor societies with a few very rich people". In fact, this only describes Britain, not the U.S.
British people simply have difficulty comprehending how rich even working-class Americans are.
I'm going to disagree with Noah a bit. (And bear in mind this is a 2022 Substack.)
There is crushing poverty in the US, to a level that in incomprehensible to a Brit or to a Slovenian.
The old silver mining "towns", barely 90 minutes out of booming Denver, are little better than the favelas in Brazil. Falling apart trailers. No jobs. No education. Just opiods, crystal meth and welfare checks.
They make the worst parts of East London or Blackpool look like heaven.
I'm sure there are parts of rural Pennsylvania and West Virginia that are similarly dirt poor.
And if you go to Mississippi, you will see that it has a higher GDP that the UK. And you'll look at Jackson - the State Capital - and you'll say "wah...". Because it doesn't feel like that at all. It feels economically incredibly poor, with empty buildings and shops.
To be fair Noah Smith does say 'We're a rich society with some very poor people' and there is a lot of poverty in the US. Yet as he points out the median American not just the richest Americans have higher incomes than any other developed nation except Switzerland and higher median disposable incomes than any nation except Luxembourg
Not this again.
As I've posted on here before, higher US GDP, and hence personal incomes, is entirely explained by four non-welfare enhancing factors:
- a working year around 17% longer (fewer holidays, longer work weeks) - much higher healthcare costs for even poorer outcomes, adding about 8%, but still leaving about a fifth of the population uncovered - the 30% increase in the dollar since 2014 against all currencies - various micro factors such as poorer public transport leading to higher car ownership, the more extreme climate needing more heating and domestic air conditioning, etc.
Given these factors, and the much less equal distribution of income, there's very little difference between overall living standards for the average American and the average Brit.
Not that we have nothing to learn from America - in particular on housing construction, where new American houses are much bigger than ours (about 2200 sq ft vs 800 istr), and its more flexible labour market (though Rayner is disastrously moving us in the other direction, and our youth unemployment rate is accordingly soaring, being worse than Spain's and Greece's).
But we still get all the teeth gnashing and chest thumping every time somebody compares the UK and Mississippi, without of course understanding what they are comparing.
The research by University College London’s Institute of Education found that secondary school pupils in England with previously strong maths performances made slower progress in mixed-attainment classes than when they were taught alongside children with similarly high ability.
Crucially, the study backed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) showed that setting by ability did not “significantly harm the attainment of low-prior-attaining or socioeconomically disadvantaged” pupils.
The study’s impact analysis showed negative effects on self-confidence in maths for pupils in mixed-attainment schools, compared with those in schools using setting – challenging previous reports that setting harms the confidence of those outside the top sets.
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics at UCL, who has studied the effects of mixed-ability classes but was not involved in the new research, described the outcome as “big and important”.
“The EEF have spent huge amounts of money investigating this issue. I think they should probably now come out and support achievement grouping in maths,” Jerrim said, arguing that “it has no negative impact on lower-achievers, some positive benefits for high-achievers, and helps teachers manage workload”...
That's a polite way of saying that mixed ability classes hamper the progress of the high achievers.
It's always been true in maths and everyone who is not a DfE official knows it.
It is arguably less true in English although other dynamics can come into play.
The critical point as @maxh pointed out a month ago is that when you set you can have smaller class sizes for the weaker groups and give them much more help and support. This makes them (a) likely to do better and (b) stops them disrupting everyone else.
The research by University College London’s Institute of Education found that secondary school pupils in England with previously strong maths performances made slower progress in mixed-attainment classes than when they were taught alongside children with similarly high ability.
Crucially, the study backed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) showed that setting by ability did not “significantly harm the attainment of low-prior-attaining or socioeconomically disadvantaged” pupils.
The study’s impact analysis showed negative effects on self-confidence in maths for pupils in mixed-attainment schools, compared with those in schools using setting – challenging previous reports that setting harms the confidence of those outside the top sets.
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics at UCL, who has studied the effects of mixed-ability classes but was not involved in the new research, described the outcome as “big and important”.
“The EEF have spent huge amounts of money investigating this issue. I think they should probably now come out and support achievement grouping in maths,” Jerrim said, arguing that “it has no negative impact on lower-achievers, some positive benefits for high-achievers, and helps teachers manage workload”...
That's a polite way of saying that mixed ability classes hamper the progress of the high achievers.
It's always been true in maths and everyone who is not a DfE official knows it.
It is arguably less true in English although other dynamics can come into play.
The critical point as @maxh pointed out a month ago is that when you set you can have smaller class sizes for the weaker groups and give them much more help and support
Although most schools will focus on the borderline groups, those who could get a C rather than those destined for an E/D.
British people like to think that both Britain and America are "poor societies with a few very rich people". In fact, this only describes Britain, not the U.S.
British people simply have difficulty comprehending how rich even working-class Americans are.
You don't need a graph. All you need is the size of the houses in the sitcoms. Roseanne's house was huge.
Yes, but. America is huge. Not surprising they have big houses.
You can buy this 8 bed for $128mn while a few miles away there is a 16 bed for $500K. Striking differences.
Is that because they can’t spare three Chinese golf buggies and a handful of old Ladas from Ukraine?
Couldn't they have borrowed some? Or are their allies too busy in Hormuz? And Venezuela?
Perhaps the Russians fleeing Mali might have a camel or donkey they can bring back with them.
It’s almost as if they have no friends left.
You think they could have borrowed some tanks for NorK Kim, and repainted them for the parade, but they obviously don’t even have that much capability any more. Or perhaps they’re worried that the Ukranians would see a train full of tanks coming over the Urals and take it out, leaving Putin with a bill to pay.
The research by University College London’s Institute of Education found that secondary school pupils in England with previously strong maths performances made slower progress in mixed-attainment classes than when they were taught alongside children with similarly high ability.
Crucially, the study backed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) showed that setting by ability did not “significantly harm the attainment of low-prior-attaining or socioeconomically disadvantaged” pupils.
The study’s impact analysis showed negative effects on self-confidence in maths for pupils in mixed-attainment schools, compared with those in schools using setting – challenging previous reports that setting harms the confidence of those outside the top sets.
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics at UCL, who has studied the effects of mixed-ability classes but was not involved in the new research, described the outcome as “big and important”.
“The EEF have spent huge amounts of money investigating this issue. I think they should probably now come out and support achievement grouping in maths,” Jerrim said, arguing that “it has no negative impact on lower-achievers, some positive benefits for high-achievers, and helps teachers manage workload”...
That's a polite way of saying that mixed ability classes hamper the progress of the high achievers.
It's always been true in maths and everyone who is not a DfE official knows it.
It is arguably less true in English although other dynamics can come into play.
The critical point as @maxh pointed out a month ago is that when you set you can have smaller class sizes for the weaker groups and give them much more help and support
Although most schools will focus on the borderline groups, those who could get a C rather than those destined for an E/D.
For quite a long time, that was what schools were implicitly told to do. Indeed the best thing to do was to find the pupils likely to get CCCCD and get them to CCCCC.
Have to say, I'm not shocked for maths. In many subjects (history, say, with great respect to m'learned colleague), it's realistic to create a lesson that's accessible at the bottom end and interesting at the top. Nobody has really found a way of doing that for maths, beyond having multiple lessons going on at once in the same room.
The research by University College London’s Institute of Education found that secondary school pupils in England with previously strong maths performances made slower progress in mixed-attainment classes than when they were taught alongside children with similarly high ability.
Crucially, the study backed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) showed that setting by ability did not “significantly harm the attainment of low-prior-attaining or socioeconomically disadvantaged” pupils.
The study’s impact analysis showed negative effects on self-confidence in maths for pupils in mixed-attainment schools, compared with those in schools using setting – challenging previous reports that setting harms the confidence of those outside the top sets.
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics at UCL, who has studied the effects of mixed-ability classes but was not involved in the new research, described the outcome as “big and important”.
“The EEF have spent huge amounts of money investigating this issue. I think they should probably now come out and support achievement grouping in maths,” Jerrim said, arguing that “it has no negative impact on lower-achievers, some positive benefits for high-achievers, and helps teachers manage workload”...
That's a polite way of saying that mixed ability classes hamper the progress of the high achievers.
It's always been true in maths and everyone who is not a DfE official knows it.
It is arguably less true in English although other dynamics can come into play.
The critical point as @maxh pointed out a month ago is that when you set you can have smaller class sizes for the weaker groups and give them much more help and support. This makes them (a) likely to do better and (b) stops them disrupting everyone else.
As a retired teacher my opinion is "no shit Sherlock"
Renouncing of US (not "American" !!) citizenship is an interesting process, and used to have a $2350 fee attached (now iirc reduced to $450),
At the moment they net them in don't they, and (lime is it Somalia?) they all become tax liable, and on renunciation may continue to be tax assessed in some way if they meet any one of certain criteria (income >~$200k. net worth >$2m etc).
There was a piece in the G yesterday, and there is a spike, But unless you travel it is a waiting list of up to 12-18 months to get an appointment to swear the oath at a Consulate. They also publish a list every quarter, so you are identified online to the world .
There's been a big spike, but the stats are 12-18 months behind - so we do not have the Trump effect yet. There was a ramp up after a new tax law brought in by Obama, and another one in the first Trump term.
One thing is indisputable; Charles is a better orator than Starmer.
I should hope so, it's a big part of his job - delivering bland stuff in a rousing fashion should be a core royal skill, considering they cannot generally say controversial things.
Rather a lot of what he said was highly controversial in the context of current US politics (limits on executive power; environmentalism; support for Ukraine etc). He just delivered it in a manner sufficiently emollient to charm everyone but Vance.
I liked the snark back at Trump (which he had the grace to laugh at) - “if it wasn’t for us you’d be speaking French”
Don't know whether to be hopeful, amused or disgusted by the futility.
US intelligence agencies are studying how Iran would respond if President Trump were to declare a unilateral victory and wind down the two-month-old war that has killed thousands and become a political liability for the White House, sources said https://x.com/G_Slattery/status/2049196293696770474
I suppose you need to do the work
- feel emboldened - Continue to leverage the strait of Hormuz - Redouble support for Hamas and hezbollah - Actively work to undermine America in the region - Shit stir in Bahrain
British people like to think that both Britain and America are "poor societies with a few very rich people". In fact, this only describes Britain, not the U.S.
British people simply have difficulty comprehending how rich even working-class Americans are.
You don't need a graph. All you need is the size of the houses in the sitcoms. Roseanne's house was huge.
Yes, but. America is huge. Not surprising they have big houses.
That's nothing to do with it. Only a trivial amount of our land is the footprint of our houses - 1% or 2% I seem to recall. In any case new houses in the UK used to be the biggest in Europe before WW2 - around 1600 sq ft I think, twice as big as they are now.
The issue is not the size of the country, it's a deliberate and disastrous policy choice by governments to keep the land released for housing completely inadequate, to appease our NIMBYs.
James Comey has been indicted by the Trump Justice Department — again.
This time, Comey has been indicted on charges alleging he made threats against Trump in that May 2025 social post of a picture of shells on the beach that spelled out "8647." https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/2049190337411780845
Can anyone explain the significance of that please?
86ing someone is killing them I believe. 47 is Trump's second presidential term.
I gather it's from the restaurant trade. "86 the omelette" - ie "omelette is off".
This is the second try; the first one failed in 2025 over Trump having not appointed his US Attorney General legally, and her (Lindsey Halligan) having abused / manipulated the Grand Jury process. He chucked out Halligan some time ago. She had zero experience as a prosecutor, of course.
I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder
And that's why you should be.
No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.
We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
Don't know whether to be hopeful, amused or disgusted by the futility.
US intelligence agencies are studying how Iran would respond if President Trump were to declare a unilateral victory and wind down the two-month-old war that has killed thousands and become a political liability for the White House, sources said https://x.com/G_Slattery/status/2049196293696770474
What is the price of a TACO with a bitter filling?
Is that because they can’t spare three Chinese golf buggies and a handful of old Ladas from Ukraine?
Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.
On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...
The research by University College London’s Institute of Education found that secondary school pupils in England with previously strong maths performances made slower progress in mixed-attainment classes than when they were taught alongside children with similarly high ability.
Crucially, the study backed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) showed that setting by ability did not “significantly harm the attainment of low-prior-attaining or socioeconomically disadvantaged” pupils.
The study’s impact analysis showed negative effects on self-confidence in maths for pupils in mixed-attainment schools, compared with those in schools using setting – challenging previous reports that setting harms the confidence of those outside the top sets.
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics at UCL, who has studied the effects of mixed-ability classes but was not involved in the new research, described the outcome as “big and important”.
“The EEF have spent huge amounts of money investigating this issue. I think they should probably now come out and support achievement grouping in maths,” Jerrim said, arguing that “it has no negative impact on lower-achievers, some positive benefits for high-achievers, and helps teachers manage workload”...
That's a polite way of saying that mixed ability classes hamper the progress of the high achievers.
It's always been true in maths and everyone who is not a DfE official knows it.
It is arguably less true in English although other dynamics can come into play.
The critical point as @maxh pointed out a month ago is that when you set you can have smaller class sizes for the weaker groups and give them much more help and support
Although most schools will focus on the borderline groups, those who could get a C rather than those destined for an E/D.
For quite a long time, that was what schools were implicitly told to do. Indeed the best thing to do was to find the pupils likely to get CCCCD and get them to CCCCC.
Have to say, I'm not shocked for maths. In many subjects (history, say, with great respect to m'learned colleague), it's realistic to create a lesson that's accessible at the bottom end and interesting at the top. Nobody has really found a way of doing that for maths, beyond having multiple lessons going on at once in the same room.
History is an unusual subject – possibly unique – in that it does not get harder in the same way that French or Maths do. One could imagine completely reversing the history syllabus so that instead of teaching primary schoolchildren about the stone age and ending the Cold War in year 11, we instead started 8-year-olds with what happened last year and had Year 11 scrabbling around in archaeological digs learning the finer points of flint knapping. You would not teach Year 4 special relativity and work back towards Archimedes' principle for GCSE. For that reason, it is easier to keep all abilities engaged in history because as they get older, it becomes easier and tales of derring-do more engaging.
Is that because they can’t spare three Chinese golf buggies and a handful of old Ladas from Ukraine?
Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.
On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...
If they were White Walkers.
The other thing that’s massively flipped is the KIA vs wounded numbers.
Usually 1:3 or 1:4, in the last few months it’s been 3:1 for the Russians.
Russia is unfeasibly large and you can't defend everywhere at once. It was reported early on that air defence systems were moved from the east to the front line but also to protect Moscow where (so far) they are pretty much idle.
We might just caution before ordering tens of thousands of drones. No doubt China and America will be working urgently on effective countermeasures.
The research by University College London’s Institute of Education found that secondary school pupils in England with previously strong maths performances made slower progress in mixed-attainment classes than when they were taught alongside children with similarly high ability.
Crucially, the study backed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) showed that setting by ability did not “significantly harm the attainment of low-prior-attaining or socioeconomically disadvantaged” pupils.
The study’s impact analysis showed negative effects on self-confidence in maths for pupils in mixed-attainment schools, compared with those in schools using setting – challenging previous reports that setting harms the confidence of those outside the top sets.
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics at UCL, who has studied the effects of mixed-ability classes but was not involved in the new research, described the outcome as “big and important”.
“The EEF have spent huge amounts of money investigating this issue. I think they should probably now come out and support achievement grouping in maths,” Jerrim said, arguing that “it has no negative impact on lower-achievers, some positive benefits for high-achievers, and helps teachers manage workload”...
That's a polite way of saying that mixed ability classes hamper the progress of the high achievers.
Surely suggest we should go back to grammar schools?
I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder
And that's why you should be.
No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.
We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
It’s not all genetics though. As PoW Charles was going to be king and was prepared and groomed for it. That was his destiny and curse. Andrew was destined to be the spare. That was his curse.
Comments
Two very good speeches from Charles, he and his writers did a very good job at UK/US relations, and did it with humour and self-deprecation.
Good to see the dogma overturned.
Teaching in classes grouped by ability does not hamper progress of less able pupils, study finds
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/apr/29/teaching-classes-by-ability-does-not-hamper-less-able-pupils-study-secondary-schools-england
Teaching pupils in classes grouped by ability improves the results of high-flyers but does not affect the progress of less able children, according to a study that upends decades of debate over mixed-ability education.
The research by University College London’s Institute of Education found that secondary school pupils in England with previously strong maths performances made slower progress in mixed-attainment classes than when they were taught alongside children with similarly high ability.
Crucially, the study backed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) showed that setting by ability did not “significantly harm the attainment of low-prior-attaining or socioeconomically disadvantaged” pupils.
The study’s impact analysis showed negative effects on self-confidence in maths for pupils in mixed-attainment schools, compared with those in schools using setting – challenging previous reports that setting harms the confidence of those outside the top sets.
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics at UCL, who has studied the effects of mixed-ability classes but was not involved in the new research, described the outcome as “big and important”.
“The EEF have spent huge amounts of money investigating this issue. I think they should probably now come out and support achievement grouping in maths,” Jerrim said, arguing that “it has no negative impact on lower-achievers, some positive benefits for high-achievers, and helps teachers manage workload”...
That's a polite way of saying that mixed ability classes hamper the progress of the high achievers.
As I've posted on here before, higher US GDP, and hence personal incomes, is entirely explained by four non-welfare enhancing factors:
- a working year around 17% longer (fewer holidays, longer work weeks)
- much higher healthcare costs for even poorer outcomes, adding about 8%, but still leaving about a fifth of the population uncovered
- the 30% increase in the dollar since 2014 against all currencies
- various micro factors such as poorer public transport leading to higher car ownership, the more extreme climate needing more heating and domestic air conditioning, etc.
Given these factors, and the much less equal distribution of income, there's very little difference between overall living standards for the average American and the average Brit.
Not that we have nothing to learn from America - in particular on housing construction, where new American houses are much bigger than ours (about 2200 sq ft vs 800 istr), and its more flexible labour market (though Rayner is disastrously moving us in the other direction, and our youth unemployment rate is accordingly soaring, being worse than Spain's and Greece's).
But we still get all the teeth gnashing and chest thumping every time somebody compares the UK and Mississippi, without of course understanding what they are comparing.
https://x.com/chuckpfarrer/status/2049305201903890577
Is that because they can’t spare three Chinese golf buggies and a handful of old Ladas from Ukraine?
It is arguably less true in English although other dynamics can come into play.
The critical point as @maxh pointed out a month ago is that when you set you can have smaller class sizes for the weaker groups and give them much more help and support. This makes them (a) likely to do better and (b) stops them disrupting everyone else.
https://x.com/paulniland/status/2049104784376926330
They’re trying to cut off the supply lines to Crimea, leaving only that bridge.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/217-W-57th-St-127128_New-York_NY_10019_M97008-06558
It’s almost as if they have no friends left.
You think they could have borrowed some tanks for NorK Kim, and repainted them for the parade, but they obviously don’t even have that much capability any more. Or perhaps they’re worried that the Ukranians would see a train full of tanks coming over the Urals and take it out, leaving Putin with a bill to pay.
Have to say, I'm not shocked for maths. In many subjects (history, say, with great respect to m'learned colleague), it's realistic to create a lesson that's accessible at the bottom end and interesting at the top. Nobody has really found a way of doing that for maths, beyond having multiple lessons going on at once in the same room.
How novel it must be in the US to have a speech in whole sentences and from paper notes.
I note Vance didn't clap when KC3 spoke for Ukraine.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mkldckrdr62c
https://x.com/tendar/status/2049372097344872763
At the moment they net them in don't they, and (lime is it Somalia?) they all become tax liable, and on renunciation may continue to be tax assessed in some way if they meet any one of certain criteria (income >~$200k. net worth >$2m etc).
There was a piece in the G yesterday, and there is a spike, But unless you travel it is a waiting list of up to 12-18 months to get an appointment to swear the oath at a Consulate. They also publish a list every quarter, so you are identified online to the world .
There's been a big spike, but the stats are 12-18 months behind - so we do not have the Trump effect yet. There was a ramp up after a new tax law brought in by Obama, and another one in the first Trump term.
It's a Zoe Williams, but more reporting than opinion.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/28/americans-queueing-up-renounce-citizenship-dictatorship
Neither are going to be contributing to the Russian economy any longer.
1) Russian air defence must be nearly non existent for such slow drones getting so far into Russia.
2) Ukrainians are now the teachers not the students in how to fight a modern war. NATO need to listen and learn.
Also the butcher of bucha just got hit, in the Russian Far East. The long arm of Ukranian vengance.
https://bsky.app/profile/noelreports.com/post/3mklhpjd5e224
NEW THREAD
There’s unconfirmed reports of local evacuations, but clearly the fire has now spread into the town adjoining the plant.
- feel emboldened
- Continue to leverage the strait of Hormuz
- Redouble support for Hamas and hezbollah
- Actively work to undermine America in the region
- Shit stir in Bahrain
The issue is not the size of the country, it's a deliberate and disastrous policy choice by governments to keep the land released for housing completely inadequate, to appease our NIMBYs.
This is the second try; the first one failed in 2025 over Trump having not appointed his US Attorney General legally, and her (Lindsey Halligan) having abused / manipulated the Grand Jury process. He chucked out Halligan some time ago. She had zero experience as a prosecutor, of course.
We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
If they were White Walkers.
Usually 1:3 or 1:4, in the last few months it’s been 3:1 for the Russians.
We might just caution before ordering tens of thousands of drones. No doubt China and America will be working urgently on effective countermeasures.
Same for William and Andrew.