Then the regulator would agree with the aggrieved parents

And the school would face a formal rebuke and get double-downgraded on a four-notch scale.

Which actually happened.

Even though the regulator was explicitly in favor of gender identity as a topic but with “proportionate” attention.

Because the school’s leadership had lost the plot. And the board wasn’t as proactive as it could have been, although the head of school was long gone by the time of the rebuke.

So not a great answer, counsel.

Interestingly, your fellow lawyers on the board effectively treated the school as a client and came up with all kinds of rationalizations and justifications for the skewed emphasis on gender identity.

Most of the other board members were much more comfortable weighing up the degree of emphasis on gender identity and concluding it was clearly “disproportionate” without a single one taking a view that there wasn’t a place for gender identity as a topic or that the impacted students and families were due anything other than all the love and support that could be mustered.

Real questions requiring real answers from real adults. On a non-partisan, objective basis.

In your parlance, your response would have earned an “F”.

By a magnitude that would have required a majority, or even nearly all, of the board to resign.