This post makes two fallacies.
1. I compares a GUE Fundamentals class (which was designed to prepare experienced divers for the rigors of cave diving training) with an introductory OW class. That is like a math teacher strutting around the department office bragging about how much more math his calculus students know than the Algebra I students.
2. It assumes a high failure rate in education is a good thing. It isn't. In a well designed curriculum, students who have the required prerequisite skills and who put in the required time and effort in the amount of time designed for course completion should complete the course satisfactorily. If there is a high failure rate in a course with properly screened students who are giving the expected effort, then either the expectations for the course are not realistic given the planned time (you can't teach Calculus I in a month), or the quality of instruction was not up to the par.
The fallacy is that you or ANY instructor can produce divers (regularly) with great trim and buoyancy in an introductory open water class. I'm not sure if you know about fundamentals but it aims to do just that - except it's for more experienced divers. I can email you the standards if you want. They are not teaching gas switching - but simply doing basic skills (far less than padi) with good trim and buoyancy. Which respectfully is what you claimed you were doing with your students.
High failure rates are not assumed. They just either fail or provisional you if you can't do it properly. Both you and gov said you could get students to do these things easily... Which I'm going to again say is either wrong or you are the best instructors the world has ever known.