Transcription of the episode “Practicing ethics: Case studies”

Transcription of the episode “Practicing ethics: Case studies”

Jon M: [00:00:15] Hi, I’m Jon Moscow.

Amy H-L: [00:00:17] And I’m Amy Halpern-Laff. Welcome to Ethical Schools. Our guest today is Meira Levinson. Dr. Levinson is Professor of Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her most recent book is “Democratic Discourse: Cases and Commentaries in Educational Ethics” with Jacob Fay. She’s the founder of justiceinschools.org. Welcome Meira. 

Meira L: [00:00:40] Thank you very much for having me.

Jon M: [00:00:43] What is jJustice in Schools, and why did you start it? 

Meira L: [00:00:47] Justice in Schools is most concretely, a website, and most, I guess, abstractly, an effort actually to get educational ethics out there as a field. So to start with the concrete, the website, justiceinschools.org, where we try to give teachers, school administrators,  school,board members, superintendents, educational policymakers, as well as parents and students themselves, tools to discuss hard questions and educational ethics that they face in policy and practice. And the tool that we provide most on Justice in Schools is what we call a normative case study.

They’re short cases, case studies. Usually they take about 10 minutes to read and they frame a problem that is pretty standard in education. Everything from what you do with a kid who’s acting out in your class and disrupting the learning both for himself and for others to how should colleges think about admissions when students’ media posts are all over and there’s a whole sort of extra set of information about students beyond their formal application to questions, say, about how a teacher should potentially actually reach out to other social service agencies or to the juvenile justice system if she fears that there is some problem that a child is facing, but she also fears what the institution might do to that child, if she doesn’t trust, say, the justice system or she doesn’t trust, say, even the Department of Children and Welfare Services. So you know, a wide variety of questions that are unfortunately really common for educators and policy makers. And we provide these case studies as a means for people to have deliberative conversations about them, to explore the nuances, to identify by what principles and virtues they sort of see as at stake in them, and to get better at having conversations about the ethical dilemmas that we face in education, policy, and practice, and all of that is in service of trying to help get ethical conversations in education and bring them to the forefront, make them more prominent. We’ve become really good in recent decades about talking about issues, say involving the instructional core or strategy, or, you know, the use of data and application or classroom management, but we are still pretty quiet about talking about the ethical dilemmas that we face and the ethical challenges that we face. And I think that’s unfortunate for the same reason that it’s good when educators can talk about questions of instruction or when principals can have open conversations with one another about questions of leadership, I think that we would all be better off when we had open conversations with one another about ethical questions that we face.

Amy H-L: [00:03:50] You said that every case has to be truly hard. Why is that?

Meira L: [00:03:54] I think because this is where we are lacking the most in education. We have a lot of resources to tell us what to do and what is ethical or unethical about our practices. There’s a lot of grandstanding and, you know, taking the high road and accusing others of being unethical or immoral or being captured by teachers’ unions or captured by corporate interests or, you know, enthralled to neoliberalism or whatever it is. Right. And, you know, I believe that zip code should not be destiny. And therefore, if you oppose me, you must clearly be, you know, immoral or unethical or hate kids or be racist or be anti-teacher or whatever it is. And sometimes that’s true, but oftentimes this moral high ground, taking the sort of king of the moral hill, makes it much harder for us to have honest and constructive conversations about the really hard questions we face when we are educating, when we are running schools, when we’re developing education policy. And so in some ways, what I’m trying to do is fill what’s unfortunately a very large niche. So I’m trying to help people have these open conversations about the hard choices that we face in education practice and policy.

The fact that when we are trying to decide whether to keep a disruptive kid in the classroom that we really are trading off, at times, a whole group of children’s learning some academics at that moment in favor, say, of a policy of inclusion or care toward that one student. And that might be the right choice at a time, but it’s a trade off. And at other times when we say, “you know what, I just, I care about you, but I can’t take what you are doing to other children right now.” Right? “It’s not okay with me that you’re making other children feel scared” or “it’s not okay with me that you are making the classroom feel unsafe to others and therefore I am going to send you to the principal’s office or advocate that you be suspended.” That also may be the right choice at the moment, but it is also a real trade off because in doing so you are excluding a child from learning and from membership. Right. And so these cases do always have to involve really hard decisions where we do not know what the right answer is.

That doesn’t mean that all ethical questions in education are hard ones, right. So there’s also another strand of work that we’ve started on, which is looking at really common practices that we have in education that I actually think are unethical and that I believe we should get rid of, that, you know, are currently widespread. There’s been a lot of work about some of these things, like, you know, no excuses policies in schools, but there’s less work about some of the other ones. I think one example is lunch-shaming. No child should be publicly shamed for their parents,not paying for their lunch, not being up to date on their meal bills. And yet it’s astonishingly widespread. And we deny children access to all sorts of things like textbooks or graduation ceremonies or hot lunches or field trips because their parents are in arrears on their meal bills. And I just think that that’s ethically wrong. And so, you know, we have some work that we’re doing around that.

Another one is the criminalization of truancy. I understand why schools and districts and policymakers are quite concerned about children who are chronically absent from school. And it may be an indication of neglect or abuse on the part of parents. And it may be that parents need some encouragement to make sure their kids get to school, you know, more reliably than they do post-COVID or even currently because actually truancy is currently being criminalized even just online. But I think mostly what we see is that it’s the criminalization of poverty and I think that’s unethical. So I’m not saying that all educational policy and practice questions are hard ethical ones, but there are a number that are and those are the ones that Justice in Schools and our books and so forth, we really try to focus in on.

Jon M: [00:08:49] You’ve mentioned in passing some of the kinds of cases that come up. And you’ve also talked about that people may come into a situation, sort of demonizing somebody with another position. Could you sort of give us a little more depth and example of what might actually happen, sort of taking one of your case studies and then what would happen if people come together with these very sharply different value systems, how would you like the scenario to play out? And how would you see Justice in Schools being able to help with that?

Meira L: [00:09:23] Yeah. So why don’t I take actually the very first case we ever wrote, which is up on the justiceinschools website, I think it’s called promotion versus retention. There I’d have to look. And it’s also the first chapter in our book on dilemmas of educational ethics cases and commentaries. And. In fact, we’ve now turned it into a multimedia case study that I’m hoping will be publicly available within the next month or so sometime this fall, which goes into more depth. So this is a case about an eighth grader who is over-age and under-prepared. So it’s a teacher team in June at Innovation Academy school, where she goes, and they are supposed to get their graduation lists into the principal in about 10 minutes time. And they are debating whether or not they should promote Adawades into ninth grade or not. So the reasons against her are that she is failing social studies and science. She reads at a fifth grade level and she’s missed over three weeks of school, just in the spring semester alone. And Innovation Academy is a school that itself underwent  restructuring and had made a commitment that every child who walks across the graduation stage would be prepared for the next year that they were not going to pass kids on simply to get them out of the system. On the other hand, one of the reasons that Adawades is failing science is because she was being bounced around foster homes in the spring. That’s also why she missed a bunch of school. And in her time when she was out of school, her science teacher went out on maternity leave and the longterm sub has taken over, who was a French and theater studies major who’s basically doing this job as a longterm sub sort of to get his foot in the door of teaching. But he’s really interested in being a humanities teacher. And as Adawades says to him, “You’re not named Mr. Science,” right. He’s offered to try to help her and she doesn’t really buy that he’s going to be able to do very much. She’s at the edge in social studies, so she’s failing, but she’s within a few points of passing. And although she’s reading at a fifth grade level, she actually started the year reading at a third grade level and she came after school every single day she was in school to work with her English teacher. And so she grew two years of reading skills in that one year working really, really hard. She also arguably had been hoping to take summer school classes and sort of make up for it and be able to go on to ninth grade, but that spring for budget reasons the district cut summer school for middle schoolers and so that’s no longer open to her. On the other hand, some of her classmates had kind of the same plan. And when the summer school closures were announced, they basically got their butts in gear and they did what it took to pass. So this teaching team is really torn about what to do about her. They really like her. They recognize that she’s been working hard. They also recognize that she’s really unprepared for ninth grade. She’s 15 years old. She’s going to turn 16 in October. They’re really concerned about what it would mean to have a 16 year old in class with the 13 year old babies, as one of them calls them. And it’s just really, really hard. There’s an alternative school that they could send her to, but the experienced teachers view the school as being basically the express bus on the school to prison pipeline, and they worry actually about her getting injured there.

So that’s the case and we have people who come in really committed to the idea that you should stick to the standards, that it’s unfair to the high school and unfair to Adawades to pass her along, that it’s a form of, you know, lying on her transcript. There are others who come in at sort of advocating an ethic of care and of recognizing Adawades for the kid she is and for the challenges that she’s overcome. I should note that she had watched her brother get killed on the porch next to her, on Halloween. I mean, she’s gone through a lot and they say let’s like, look at what she’s done, you know,.We know that retention is more likely to lead toward dropping out. Let’s show her some faith. A lot of people are like, why isn’t Adawades’ voice in the conversation and others are  are like, yes, we’d like it here, but we have to make a decision now anyway. Many others want to overthrow the system entirely. And they’re like, why do we have the system? You know, we have one commentary in the book by Melissa Aguirre who says, this is the reason that we need a mastery based or competency based system rather than something that’s all about, you know, sort of all or nothing, right. There are those who say like, why is this about, you know, external standards and sort of this, again, this sort of hierarchical state, and what are they doing talking about this in June, right? Like why, where were they in October, in November, in December, in January? And so then that permits a conversation about trauma informed education and about, you know, who’s in the building, who’s in these meetings, et cetera. So what this can do, what we’ve seen us do with all sorts of people, with those who have no experience in schools, it actually helps them become attuned to the complexities that you face in schools and school systems. Unfortunately, sometimes they get more focused on Adawades herself and they think, well, okay, let’s just donate money and get her some summer tutoring and then move on. And it’s like, well, actually Adawades, you know, yes, she is a real, you know, she’s a fully realized individual, but she’s also actually, you know, she’s representative of a much larger group. Right. And so part of it is still trying to help people think systemically and not just individually, but then also it enables people to have again, complex conversations about why standards matter, why academic achievement matters, why [inaudible]care matters, how you look at generic data, such as data around, the effects of promoting kids versus retaining them in the context of a really specific case, right. So we can know statistics, but statistics don’t necessarily tell us what will happen with any one individual,  right. Conversations about how much discretion teachers should have, and then conversation about how would one reform systems so that teachers don’t face this hard question in the first place because that’s one of the things is that, although the cases that we formulate focus on a particular decision moment in time, they are also designed to help people kind of step back from that one decision and ask, well, how did we get here and how might we reform our practices or our policies so that we don’t face these kinds of wicked decisions in the first place?

Jon M: [00:16:14] Who are  writing and researching the cases?

Meira L: [00:16:19] Mostly thus far, it’s been my doctoral students and me, and then sometimes master’s students and undergraduates who take the course that I have taught or my colleague Jacob Fay has taught, depending on the year, or we’ve co-taught on educational justice or educational ethics. That title is dependent on the year, but we’ve also started fielding cases from elsewhere. We have a great case from Australia, from a professor there. Yeah. We have a case about parents opting out of standardized testing and what role a principal should play in addressing standardized testing opt outs in her school. That was written by some colleagues at University of Colorado, Boulder. We have actually a great case, kind of Reader’s Theater about school walkouts that was written by some high schoolers at the Met School in Providence, Rhode Island.  We worked with them on that and we are working also to try to field more international cases as well as cases from around the country here. So we’re trying to broaden our array of case writers and researchers, but for the most part thus far, it’s been my students and me.

Amy H-L: [00:17:32] Meira, do you find great variation in the cases that you get from different regions in the country and from different countries?

Meira L: [00:17:41] That’s a good question. So we don’t yet have a good enough solicitation mechanism for me to be able to tell you there is great variation. It’s  really wonderful, say, thinking about my undergraduate and master’s and doctoral students who initiate cases and to write. There, oftentimes region really matters. So for example, one of my undergraduate students who came from a rural town in the South up to Harvard. And she was one of the very few kids, I think, from her region to make that journey. She wrote a really beautiful case that we’re currently editing, I think, and are hoping to bring out soon, about the tension actually felt by the students and by educators in the school around encouraging her to go to an elite university far away, that was likely to lead her further away, you know, that she was less likely to return home, versus going to a high quality program at the local state university and remaining more part of the community. That was a very regionally specific case, but also it’s quite general, right. Like it’s something that we could all recognize.

There’s also a case that actually one of my doctoral students from China wrote, that we’re also editing and about to post, that’s about a nonprofit that serves migrant children within China whose families have migrated from rural to urban areas, but without getting the permission of the Chinese government so they don’t have the all- important residency permit that would give them full rights to live in the urban area they’ve moved to. And so one of the problems for kids under that situation is that their access to high quality high schools is really limited. And this program is designed to actually promote students, sort of civic engagement and capacity and organizing, but the kids and their parents are really pushing for test prep because that is the way that they see themselves being able to access some of those very few places in, in the high quality high schools. And so the board of this nonprofit is really wrestling with the question of whether they should sort of abandon their vision of what a good education is, which is not test prep and about civic empowerment, which they see as more broadly important than test prep in the face of their own, you know, students’ advocacy for test prep. And although that it again is rooted in really specific features of the Chinese political and educational context, I think it’s also very, very recognizable to those of us, you know, here in the United States, right, about the trade off between short term and long term learning goals, about the extent to which helping our students succeed on high stakes exams should be a priority as opposed to gaining some lifelong learning.

Jon M: [00:21:05] 

Beyond the cases that you know about because people are sendiing them in, do you have a sense overall of who is using the program and how they’re using it?

Meira L: [00:21:19] Yeah. So just from, you know, as simple Google analytics, we know that there have been over 50,000 visitors to justiceinschools, sort of uniquely, about half of them from the United States and half from elsewhere around the world, over 130 countries. Interestingly India, and the Philippines are very consistently our largest users. I don’t know who those people are there,  but I have been contacted, I mean, I’m, I’m in touch with people who use our cases in Germany, France, the UK, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Lebanon, New Zealand, Australia, Israel, Jordan, Greece. Estonia, Mexico, like a wide variety of things. And I think probably they are being used the most in university settings that are doing teacher training, administrator training, leadership programs, philosophy of education and some education policy and sociology of education. But I know that they also are getting used by schools and districts and ministries of education, and also by nonprofits to have conversations. So, yeah, it’s a wide variety of sort of use cases.

Jon M: [00:22:44] Are there any costs associated with using it?

Meira L: [00:22:47] Thus far, no. Justiceinschools.org is freely available and you can download. We have about two dozen cases on there. We’re starting to create some videos to put on there. And we have some teacher resources and say facilitation guides, et cetera. All of those are freely available. This case that I described at length about Adawades’ promotion versus retention case, as I mentioned, we’ve created a multimedia version of it that’s about an hour long, a sort of experiential version where you can do things like read an essay that she’s written, see her report card, listen in on the teacher team meeting, and actually participate in it, look inside her locker. There’s a bunch of things that you sort of do over the course of the hour or so that it takes to go through the multimedia case and that’s set up in order to enable then you to talk with other people about it, but you can also do it sort of asynchronously on your own. There’s a journal, et cetera. That, unfortunately, we will have just charge something for, because of the data and hosting costs. I forgot, you know, I’m a political theorist. And so it didn’t occur to me that having this sort of data-hungry thing, sit on a server somewhere and be able to communicate, right, it was going to cost us something, but I’m hoping it will be under us $10 per user. That’s my hope.

Amy H-L: [00:24:10] How do you define success in terms of processes or outcomes?

Meira L: [00:24:17] That’s a really good question. So my vision of success, right, there’s this sort of meta-success and then the sort of user success, right. So in some ways, success for me is that people use our materials and find them helpful to address problems that they felt they had, right. I mean, this is part of the thing about like, just posting the stuff on justiceinschools, or say publishing them in the books is that people will use them if and only if they think they solve or address problems that they have, that they want to try to solve or at least get better at. And if people sort of keep using our stuff and recommending it to others, then that means that we are addressing challenges that people are facing in the field and helping them get better at that. So, you know, for whatever reason they’re going for it. So then that way, you know, that in itself feels like success to me. You know, I was a middle school teacher for eight years in the Atlanta and the Boston public schools between, after I finished my doctorate but before I became a professor, and I’ve now been a professor for longer than I was ever an eighth grade teacher, but the people I care about the most are, you know, the eighth grade teachers of the world. So it’s the people who are actually in the field doing the work of educating, working with kids, running schools, working with schools and districts and you know, and making policy, those are the people whose work has really, really concrete impact on the lives of children and families and communities day to day. And so for me, success is helping them do their job better.

But the other part of success for me is that we become more open about the ethical challenges that we face in education policy and practice, and that we can become better at addressing those, that we actually. Individually and collectively, are able to make better and more ethical decisions over time. And then, as I think I mentioned at the very beginning, the last sort of marker of success is if I can get this field of educational ethics off the ground and get it sort of instantiated and scaled and built into the structures of schools and districts and policy-making organizations, et cetera. If in 20 years, it seems perfectly natural that every large school district would have its own consulting educational ethicists or its own, you know, committee that it could go to and say we’re trying to decide whether or not to upgrade HVACs across the district or whether to build a school in this neighborhood that currently feels underserved. And you know, this has a bunch of different components to it, but partly it’s an ethical decision. Can you help us think through it? That would feel like a measure of success to me, if, when we’re thinking about teacher evaluations or high stakes testing or discipline policies, and we have educational ethicists in the conversation at the beginning rather than just critiquing at the end, that would be success to me.

Jon M: [00:28:00] You know, it’s really interesting listening to you say that because our parent organization is Ethics in Education Network and the founder, Dr. Judy Wallach, started it because her dream was that the New York State Regents would make ethics a course, a subject or an area in the same way that it makes other subject areas. And I think that when she gets to listen to you say this, that it’s just going to be very exciting. And it’s also going to give, you know, something very concrete for us and for other people, you know, around the country to be able to say, yeah, do this, that this is something that state departments of education could then could implement.

Meira L: [00:28:49] Great. 

Jon M: [00:28:52] So, are you doing cases that are involving out of school time programs? 

Meira L: [00:28:57] Yes, we are. We have a few cases already on our website. And we have some others actually in development. One of the cases, for example, on our website is about an afterschool program that is run and staffed by undergraduates.  It’ll be pretty familiar to a lot of people. There are many such programs where it’s very enthusiastic undergraduates who are trying to serve an underserved area in an underserved community and they’re working in the school. And yet they are facing challenges that are just beyond their ken,  beyond their training. And in this case, what they’re trying to do is figure out what to do about a, I think he’s a seven year old boy, who’s fairly disruptive and can be fairly unsafe. There’s a risk that he, they sort of barely stopped him from pulling a bookcase over on another kid. He can be pretty hard to handle, but when they talked to his mom, his mom is thrilled about his being there and really thinks he’s doing so well. They’re [inaudible], you’ve gotta be kidding me, like this counts as well? But they’ve, they feel, you know, really torn about how to serve him, how to serve his mom, how to serve the program, and who are they to be making these choices, given their lack of training and knowledge? So that, unfortunately, may sound pretty familiar.

So some of your listeners, and we have some other cases on the website too, that some of which are located in schools, but arise also in out of school programs and then say, you know, this example of this Chinese nonprofit that’s trying to decide whether or not it should be educating for test prep versus for civic empowerment, again, is an out of school program. And then we have, you know, a few cases actually about higher education, which are also not about, you know, within school practices necessarily.

Amy H-L: [00:30:52] Do you ever, or do users of the website ever include children, students, and/or parents in working through these cases? 

Meira L: [00:31:05] Yeah, they do. so I mentioned that we have a reader’s theater case about student walkouts that was written by some high schoolers from the Met School in Providence, and actually those students also wrote a commentary that was published in our most recent book, ‘Democratic Discord in Schools,” about a case that we had written about student walkouts. And so they collectively wrote a commentary. Also in another case that’s in that book, a case that’s about surveillance of kids and basically the use of digital technologies to surveil kids, we solicited middle schoolers, high schoolers, and early college students to write very short commentaries on that case. And we ended up publishing, I think it was six different students, from a rising eighth grader through a college student, writing commentaries about that case.

And I also know that many of the teachers, so when I run professional development with teachers using our cases, often they will take them and then turn them around and immediately use them with their own students. So for example, this digital surveillance case that we have, the teachers will say, “oh my gosh, this is an amazing case,” thinking about search and seizure, thinking about civil liberties, thinking about equal protection, freedom of speech. And so then they’ll just sort of take it and use it in their government class or their civics class. Jane Lowe, who is a professor at Michigan State University, has taken some of the cases as well as writing some of her own in a collaboration with one of my doctoral students, Tatiana Jerome, that were then piloted in seventh grade civics classes in Florida, and they apparently were fairly successful there. And we’ve talked about trying to do a more comprehensive and sort of an intentional work, creating some normative case studies specifically for students in middle school, civics classes. 

And then the multimedia case version of the  Adawades case, the promote or retain case, one of the most fun pilot tests of that, was we had some teachers from a school that was not one of our target schools at all. It’s an independent school in New York City, but an eighth grade teacher who learned about the case said, “Oh, I’d love to pilot it.” And in the end it was a group of eighth graders and their teachers who worked together after school through the case. And the eighth graders led the discussion, and they were the ones who insisted that say when they did their values sort or when they made choices about what to do with Adawades or when they wrote their journal entries that they had to do it collectively. And so it meant that the eighth graders ended up directing their eighth grade teachers in conversation until they reached consensus about what to do and what to say at each stage, which I thought was wonderful, totally unexpected.

Jon M: [00:34:11] And about parents, have parents been involved?

Meira L: [00:34:14] So that’s a really good question. Yes, although I don’t think as systematically as elsewhere. So actually, two cases in our first book, one was of educational ethics that are about school policy questions. And they both happened to be rooted in Massachusetts, where I lived. So one of them looks at school choice and how the Boston public schools redesigned their school choice system in ways that arguably, they reinforced what I call the ethics of pandering, basically the way they redesigned it. I think they’re pretty clearly designed to pander to the interests of particularly higher income white and, to a much lesser extent, Asian, parents in Boston, which is clearly inequitable and, you know, unjust as a first pass, but arguably nonetheless justified because it is in the system’s interest to keep those parents in the system because those parents have such disproportionate social, political, and economic power that the system as a whole potentially benefits from their being involved. Even when they engage in things like opportunity, hoarding and other practices that are. Inequitable and unjust.

I don’t know if you’ve listened to the podcast, “Nice White Parents,” that has been going around. But in ways, that case sort of looks how Boston public schools structured its school choice in order to do that kind of pandering to nice white parents exactly, you know, it’s discussed in that podcast. And that case I know has been used by parents, in fact, when they have been and doing organizing around BPS and elsewhere.

We have a second case in that book about charter schools and how we should think about charter school approval and expansion in comparison to district schools and what it means.to look at the data. And what data do you look at? You know, how do you compare? And interestingly, that I know is used by members of the Massachusetts State House, elected state representatives and state senators, in order to communicate actually with constituents and with journalists about the challenge, in part because it was one of the few things that was quite sort of clear-eyed about how different ways of slicing the data made charters, look, you know, much better or no better than, you know, the local district school without taking, you know, the moral high ground and then casting stones on what ,you know, about a particular policy.  And so I know that parents were involved in those conversations, too, but it was from the elected officials that I’ve heard that they were able to use the case in order to help again, parents, policy makers, journalists, and colleagues understand what was at stake and have open conversations about what was at stake in a more nuanced way than they had found elsewhere.

Jon M: [00:37:35] And I think that those cases that you just mentioned are, are incredibly important because they’re talking about systemic change. Actually, we’re going to be posting an episode interview with Ellen McHugh, who’s with Parent to Parent in New York state, which is an advocacy group and technical assistance group for parents of children with special needs. And I can imagine that in a number of the cases you’ve been talking about, it would be really interesting for parents to be involved in some of these discussions, either with the teachers or… I come actually from a parent organizing and advocacy background, and I could imagine parent groups, parents associations, and so forth using a lot of these cases as well.

Meira L: [00:38:20] Yeah. Great. I’m glad you think so. I mean, I would love for that to happen. One of the things that I will, when I do professional development, or if I give talks, I’ll throw in that, I think that they could be very useful, in like PTA discussions and in fact, in parent organizing. But I don’t have any, you know, systematic means of enacting that.

And as you can tell from many of my answers again, because we just sort of make this stuff freely available on the web and all we do is have this very, you know, whatever, like the free Google analytics is that you get when you, you know, create your website. It’s only when people get in touch with me or I occasionally like run across stuff that I actually get some knowledge of, “Oh, I didn’t know that that’s being used that way.” So it could be that many parents, parent organizations, are using it or maybe almost none are. I just don’t know. 

Jon M: [00:39:15] Hopefully this episode might increase the number of people who get in touch with you and tell you.

Meira L: [00:39:20] That would be great. 

Jon M: [00:39:21] Thank you so much. Meira Levinson of Harvard Graduate School of Education and Justice in Schools.

Amy H-L: [00:39:28] Thank you, listeners. If you like this episode, please share it with a friend or colleague Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts and give us a rating or review. This helps other people to find the show. Check out our website, ethicalschools.org, for more episodes and articles, and subscribe to our monthly emails.

We post annotated transcripts of our interviews to make them easy to use in workshops or classes. We work with consultants to offer customized SEL programs with a focus on ethics for schools and youth programs in the New York City area. Contact us at hosts@ethicalschools.org. That’s hosts@ethicalschools.org. We’re on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter @ethicalschools. Our editor and social media manager is Amanda Denti. Until next week. 

Click here to listen to this episode.