FOR some weeks now, this newspaper has been trying to get the Education Department to come clean on how the island’s GCSE exam results compare with those of the UK.

While such statistics as the department chooses to release indicate Guernsey schools do better, the likelihood is that some do not.

The reason is that English results are benchmarked on five A* to Cs including maths and English while Guernsey’s are not and this deficiency in the reporting has been disclosed as a result of Jersey having also decided to massage its own statistics in this way.

With the Jersey story out, it is clear that that island trails the UK and the supposition is Guernsey does too.

If so, that is significant for pupils, their parents and the taxpayer. It ought also to be of concern to Education because it should be taking steps to improve performance and being accountable for its success or failure in that area.

The Jersey Education minister attempted to explain away the blocking of data release by saying: ‘It is fundamentally difficult to compare the performance of individual schools, as our education system is highly selective. The only fair comparison is to consider the overall achievements of our students with those in other jurisdictions.’

Really? Most parents would have an interest in a school’s ability to help pupils get good grades in maths and English rather more than, say, basket-weaving and macramé or whatever wider ‘curriculum offer’ Education fears might be lessened as a result of greater focus on basic skills.

The important point, however, is that parents and taxpayers are not fools. They do not judge schools as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ on the basis on GCSEs alone and, as Jersey’s Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel found after formal assessment, there is no reason to withhold such statistics.

In the Guernsey context, it is difficult not to conclude that the block on meaningful data release – much like Environment’s refusal to respond to questions from this newspaper – is because it exposes it to accountability.

If the results are worse than the UK’s, what has caused that – and what is a £75m. department doing to rectify matters?