I am still waiting for a consensus to be reached on whether he did just enough as required by the law, turned a blind eye, covered it up, or enabled it.
Sadly, whether intentional or not, I believe Paterno, Spaniard, et al enabled Sandusky's actions by turning a blind eye.
That's a harsh thing to say about the Spanish everywhere, but I don't think that either Paterno or Spanier were as culpable as Curley and Schultz, who were the ones who actively downgraded the charges and shirked their moral and legal duties (or at least, that is what the Grand Jury concluded).
I vote for 1, 2, and 4.
1 because that was the conclusion reached by the Pennsylvania prosecutors -- he did report it to his nominal superiors, and there is nothing to indicate that he put any pressure on them not to do their jobs.
2 because there is no indication that he did any follow-up at all, and his last interview claimed that he was more worried about academic protocol than protecting children from rape. That is moral cowardice, and possibly worse.
not 3 because a cover-up requires some evidence of actual complicity. Now that he's dead, Curley and Schultz may spill those beans as well, but until they do and it is corroborated by somebody who is not trying to pass the blame, I think that blaming Paterno for a cover-up is a step too far.
4 because everybody who heard the story and then did nothing while Sandusky continued to prey on kids and haunt the campus is guilty of enabling child rape.