I will be doing a lot of reading over the next several hours as I received both the report and the exhibits. I have to say - just scanning the exhibits - that there are many contradictions from what I have heard from several directions. It's going to be interesting cross-referencing both.
What I can say is that there are two connecting issues that could be problematic for the district.
One is that it is not clear if the district made an effort to find out the past history of the male student involved. The "admissions form" for SPS does ask two questions about past discipline issues and the parents are supposed to "certify" that these are "true and accurate." What is problematic is that the attorney for the teacher could not get access to this student's admission form.
Did the district know this student had issues (and, in particular, had been in trouble for nearly the same behavior at another field trip)? I have heard that someone at JSCEE did know this but again, did anyone tell Principal Howard or any of the GHS staff?
Two, is Ms. Burton's lawyer's claim that the male student might not have been able to go on the trip and if he had been able, Ms. Burton would have supervised him differently. Ms. Burton has taken students on many field trips during her career. If she can prove that she has indeed handled students differently, based on past behaviors, on some field trips, she bolsters her case.
The lawyer also claims that the small amount of drinking done by the chaperones had no direct effect on the two sexual incidents that occurred.
More to come.