I've read all your replies. And it seems to me that you're either misunderstanding - or misrepresenting - the girls affirmation.
She do not agree - or affirm - to have sex with the boy. She agreed to act as bait.
The boys side could argue that once she was in the bathroom, she "went along", but what does that mean?
It is most likely she had only the barest scrap of understanding of what sex is (e.g. "is pulling down my pants still part of 'acting as bait'?"), and as such, given her mental state she could not give consent.
If I ask someone if I can give them a lobotomy, have they really given their consent if they think I'm really talking about giving them a kind of lolli-pop?
The perp didn't know that she only agreed to be "bait". Yes is no?
The school administration and teaching assistant were criminally negligent and I don't see anyone on here calling for criminal prosecution of them. Firing. Fining. They deserve jail time for their action. It was criminally negligent. If she could not consent to sex then she could not consent to be rape bait either.
It seems to me that the teaching assistant, the teachers, the principal and vice principal are are guilty of corruption of a minor for agreeing to use the 14 year old special needs girl in a ‘sting’ without PARENTAL CONSENT.