particular that the principal and the superintendent and other employees of the school district were the word of the parents when their suspected violations of it is involving disciplinary matters when they do their most important case for the court to consider is the healing case the balance you know the case is the most applicable almost similar to the facts that apply in this case and valentino it was a teacher who was sought to amend the we also made reference to the statute that pertains to supervision and there is an exception in that particular statute for willful and wanton conduct if you can prove may be exercised for the safety and supervision i think that is not intended to be limited in their duties of supervision i think it encompasses the duty to supervise especially in the context of this case when mr sharon himself says yes i have a duty to supervise i think it makes sense as a matter of local all city of the state would want our teachers to supervise we wouldn't want them towards children leave the playground and walk into the street who wouldn't want to teach and do nothing if one student classroom is injuring another person so i think it makes sense the law of the state is there a duty to supervise the question is whether or not  particular individual in a disciplinary of situation a determination of determining policy not not how do we deal with this particular situation but how does that expand into a determination of policy that by its nature of its policy would be applicable to other individuals in similar certain situations it led the policy making to the administrators to take the certain facts to a specific incident and determine how he is going to work towards is the jugular student what's determine these are the criteria that's the policy it is applying it to an individual a determination a policy that seems to be contradictory within the terms that you set up well the exactly what your involvement was and here here here is what really happened here there was a point of frustration there and still maintain that it was appropriate under the employee where there were allegations of verbal physical abuse for five years it involved pushing kicking grabbing twisting pushing a face against the window and this employee none of that happened here and it happened over a hundred times the court there said that the defendant had creatively attempted to frame the conduct as criticisms of the employee's job foreman but that was not the case because the complaint allege was never intended to allege failure supervise and at the trial court on august fourteenth two thousand and twelve found the section five dash twenty four twenty four of the illinois school code did not  the word as opposed to saying that even though it used verses even though it's intentional when the bell school board was faced with that question it did not have a problem finding that there was no muti or it least  global contract in issues and not not at all like this one involving intentional conduct and all the serious injuries alternately we believe resulted in the death of this way one benefit of all was no school year of extras there was nothing going on in this case that could result in the greatest of the five they don't like the idea that we have an additional course of action in the file a course of action based on mr sharon's