Treasury must present its evidence

It even features in Treasury and Resources' criticism of Education's report on the building of two new schools at La Mare.

Where is the evidence, Treasury asks, that bigger classrooms, corridors and meetings rooms make for a better education? It is a fair point. Nothing should be taken for granted. Evidence should be presented.

It is disappointing then that Treasury's letter of comment – more a minority report than the usual postscript – asks for a decision of monumental importance to be made with barely a shred of evidence.

Huge sums are bandied around with back-of-a-fag-packet credibility. Capital and running cost savings for dropping from four to three schools could be as much as £160m. Based on what analysis, what costings? None is presented.

The suspicion is that someone with a calculator has simply lopped a percentage off every bill based on a smaller school. 27% less floor area equals 27% less cleaning, heating, lighting, teaching etc. multiplied by 60 years.

Perhaps it is more sophisticated than that. If so, let us see.

Worse, deputies are told that a bigger, not smaller, school should be built at La Mare, capable of taking some of the excess when the fourth school closes.

It will be cheaper than adding it on later, we hear. But by how much? How much does a 960-pupil high school cost? No idea.

And will that be enough or will St Sampson's High also need to get bigger? How much will the cleaning bill over 60 years be then?

That assumes, of course, that St Sampson's is not to close. Or Les Beaucamps. Or the Grammar.

A vote for closing 'a school' puts all under threat. Every teacher, pupil and parent unsettled until the whole education system including the colleges and CFE is sorted. It could be years. Yet Treasury's own review said La Mare should be built regardless.

It may well be that a school has to close.

But where is the evidence?