Transcript

Host: Hello and welcome to Prevention and Protection, the United Educators risk management Podcast. Today, Kai McGintee, Founder and Managing Director at Aleta Law, a national investigations and resolutions law firm, and Heather Salko, Manager of Risk Research at United Educators, will discuss the importance of boundary setting in schools. Before we begin, a quick reminder to listeners that you can find other UE podcasts, as well as UE risk management resources, on our website, ue.org.

Our podcasts are also available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Now here’s Heather.

Heather Salko: Hello and welcome, Kai. I’m really looking forward to our discussion today about the important topic of boundary setting between educators and students in the K-12 school setting.

Kai McGintee: Thank you. Heather, I’m so happy to be here.

Salko: Would you please tell our listeners a bit about your background, your experience in this area, and about Aleta Law?

McGintee: Yes. I’d be glad to. I am the Founder and Managing Director of Aleta Law. Aleta is a boutique investigations law firm that conducts neutral external investigations for schools and organizations across the country. Our team regularly investigates issues of sexual misconduct, boundary violations, grooming and power imbalance concerns involving educators, coaches, and administrators.

I’ve practiced in the education law space for coming on 20 years, having worked with colleges and K-12 schools of all sizes, private and public, boarding and day schools. Over my career, I’ve probably conducted and overseen hundreds of investigations involving adult boundary issues, and I frequently work with schools to provide best practice guidance on policies, training, and prevention.

Salko: Great. We are happy to tap your expertise today on our episode about something that schools often struggle to recognize early enough, those boundary violations between an educator, a coach, or even an administrator that may not look dramatic at first, but they can signal deeper risk if they are ignored, minimized, or handled inconsistently.

This issue, unfortunately, of boundary violations, has been around a long time, but based on some anecdotal evidence that we are seeing at United Educators, this behavior does seem to be on the rise.

While all sexual misconduct against students is something that we aim to prevent, today we are going to focus on the conduct that often comes first: repeated texting with one student, unusual favoritism, unnecessary physical contact, or behavior that staff describe as concerning, overly familiar, or just simply a boundary issue.

And one of the misconceptions we see at United Educators is that the behavior is worth investigating only when there’s already been an allegation of overt sexual misconduct. But many cases begin much earlier with conduct that is easy to dismiss. Let me ask you this, Kai, what is your role as a neutral investigator in these types of situations?

McGintee: Yeah, it’s a great question. So when I’m engaged by a school, my job is to be a neutral fact finder and give the school a clear picture of what happened so that the school can take appropriate action. Practically, that means I start with the behavior that’s at issue, not labels or conclusions. I’m asking, “What’s going on here? How often? With which students? Who saw it? Has anyone raised this before?” And looking for patterns.

I’m looking for whether there was exclusive attention to one student, whether there was secrecy, whether the behavior escalated over time, and whether the educator has ignored prior coaching. Those are often the situations where the risk really shows up. And then I test those facts against the school’s own policies and professional standards, looking at their electronic communication policies, policies around one-on-one meetings, physical contact, social media, transportation of students.

And I’m looking at the questions, you know, “What did the adult do? What’s allowed? And how far did the conduct diverge from what’s permitted by the school?” Neutrality means that I’m ensuring a fair and unbiased process for the adult and the student when I’m conducting an investigation.

That means the adult gets to hear the concerns that have been raised and has a chance to respond and provide context, and that means that the student is interviewed in a manner that is trauma-informed and developmentally appropriate, and I’m ensuring that their concerns are taken seriously and receive an impartial review.

At the end of the process, I am producing a clear written report summarizing what was found to have occurred and how that lines up with the school’s policy. I generally am not deciding discipline. That’s usually the school’s role.

I give them a solid, objective foundation, so they’re not relying on rumor or hindsight, and so that they can intervene early when concerns are still just “boundary issues.” And before they’ve crossed the line, as you said, into that more serious nature of misconduct.

Salko: Thank you for that. When people hear the phrase “sexual misconduct investigation,” they often do think of one dramatic event that’s being investigated. But from the perspective of an investigator, what do these cases usually look like when you go back to the beginning?

McGintee: Yeah, I mean, from an investigator’s perspective, these situations almost never start with one dramatic, newsworthy event. They usually start with a series of small, explainable behaviors that on their own can look like poor judgment or even just being nice. Early on, you might see a lot of one-on-one texting with a particular student, often outside of school hours.

You might see extra favors or access the student getting rides or food or special treatment by the adult, you might see physical contact that’s framed as being friendly, such as hugs or touching shoulders, sitting a bit too close. You might see closed-door meetings or time alone between the adult and the student in less supervised spaces. You might also see a developing, emotionally intense relationship where the adult starts to become the go-to person for the student’s problems.

Each piece can sound minor when you hear it in isolation. What I’m looking for is the pattern. Is the attention exclusive? Is there secrecy? Is the behavior escalating over time? And has anyone tried to set limits before?

So oftentimes by the time it’s labeled, you know, a “sexual misconduct investigation,” there’s already this trail of emails, texts, comments from colleagues, maybe some prior informal coaching on boundaries.

And while the case is triggered by one specific allegation, when you kind of pull at that thread, you typically see that there have been months, sometimes even years, of boundary pushing that people may have noticed, people felt uneasy about, and they either normalized or they didn’t really know how to address it. So the beginning really rarely does look like a serious offense. It usually looks like a relationship that slowly becomes less professional and more private over time.

And that’s exactly why early, consistent attention to the “small” boundary issues, and again I put that in quotes, is so important.

Salko: OK. So then from your neutral perspective, why is it that important for the schools to really pay attention to those what maybe labeled early boundary violations even before … anyone alleges sexual misconduct in what we think of in the clearest sense.

McGintee: From a neutral standpoint, there are three big reasons to take those early boundary concerns seriously, even when no one is alleging overt sexual misconduct. First, patterns almost always start small. In most of the cases that I’ve investigated, as I said, the formal allegations of sexual misconduct come after ongoing boundary pushing behavior.

We often refer to this as kind of the slippery slope. And these behaviors are often hard to recognize as grooming until there is a report of sexual misconduct and there’s the benefit of hindsight. So that’s because these behaviors of favoritism, maybe riding alone in a car, getting special treatment, they don’t by themselves prove sexual intent.

However, if schools act only when the most obvious allegation of sexual misconduct appears, they’ve missed multiple earlier opportunities to intervene and prevent sexual misconduct before it occurs.

Second, schools have a duty to manage risk, not just criminal behavior. My job is to compare the behavior to the policy and professional norms of the school.

And if those standards say no one-on-one texting or no transporting students in personal vehicles and an adult is repeatedly doing those things, the school doesn’t have to sit around and wait for proof of sexual misconduct to address them. So early action might look like coaching, or clearer directives, or increased supervision — steps that protect the student and also give the adult a chance to correct course before the consequences become more severe.

And third, I would say that ignoring the smaller violations sends a really big message. When colleagues or students see that boundary pushing behavior is allowed to go unaddressed, it tends to normalize the conduct and it discourages people from speaking up next time. However, when schools respond consistently to early concerns, it signals to the community that we take these professional boundaries seriously and that we are going to address them.

So from an investigator’s lens, paying attention early isn’t about assuming the worst. It’s about really recognizing that seemingly minor or repeated boundary violations are often, you know, the first visible signs of a relationship that may be drifting out of a professional zone, and that those are the moments where you want to step in to prevent further harm.

Salko: That’s good for people to think about. So let me ask a question now that might be on everyone’s mind and certainly on mine: Are boundary crossing and grooming the same thing?

McGintee: Yeah, I get this question a lot. Boundary crossing is a broad term. It simply means an adult is stepping outside the school’s professional norms. So that again, could be too much one-on-one texting, giving rides in a personal car, unnecessary physical contact, oversharing about their own life, meeting privately in spaces. Those behaviors could stem from a lot of things. It could be poor judgment, could be a desire to be helpful, could be a result of burnout by the adult, could be a lack of training.

And we see that happen a lot. These are still risky. And they also may still violate policy, even if there’s no sexual intent on the part of the adult.

In contrast, grooming is purposeful. It’s a pattern of behavior used by someone who intends to exploit a student, and grooming typically involves selecting a particular student and giving them special attention, gradually increasing that privacy, secrecy, and emotional dependence, testing and pushing boundaries to see what the student will tolerate.

And so, while all grooming involves boundary violations, not all boundary violations are grooming.

Salko: Kai, you and the other investigators in your firm have been called in, as you mentioned, over your careers, for many sexual misconduct investigations. Based on your experience, are there specific early behaviors that do stand out as warning signs?

McGintee: Yes. Across many cases that we investigate, we see the same early behaviors that show up again and again.

And the key is really when these behaviors are repeated, when they’re focused on one student, when they’re secretive, and when they’re escalating. And a few that kind of consistently stand out in the sexual misconduct investigations that we do are frequent texting or messaging with a student — using personal phones, apps with disappearing messages like Snapchat or other kinds of side channels that are outside of school, you know, regular school platforms to communicate with a student.

The topics of conversations between the adult and the student, drifting from academic school-related topics into personal topics and feelings. You know, kind of “you can tell me anything” kind of conversations.

Special treatment and favoritism of a student — again, getting those kind of extra perks, extra access to the adult, maybe food or gifts.

The adult framing the relationship as unique. I’ve seen this time and again where the adult frames the relationship with the student by saying, you know, “You’re different than anyone else. You’re my favorite.”

Having pet names for the student, or telling the student that they’re more mature than any of their peers, or more like the adult, and then, you know, unnecessary physical contact again. That usually escalates over time, whether that starts with kind of, you know, hugging or touching shoulders, rubbing shoulders, sitting close, just kind of regular, playful type physical contact that clearly isn’t needed for the academic environment or for any instruction.

Time alone with a student in less visible settings, whether that’s, you know, in a in an office space or in a car, emotional overinvolvement and an educator getting involved in the student’s private life or the student having communications with the educator about the educator’s private life.

And then pushing or ignoring prior limits that have been set, and whether those limits have been set by, you know, colleagues who’ve made comments or even supervisors and the behavior persisting.

So from an investigator’s standpoint these are the kinds of early behaviors that when documented and addressed consistently, can be sometimes corrected with coaching — but if they continue, are also strong indicators that the risk is much higher than it first appears.

Salko: Well, I would imagine, then, for bystanders to this conduct, one of the challenges will be that they may observe the conduct, but they only view one incident at a time, and it may seem explainable. And then it’s only when, as you mentioned before, someone steps back, sees the pattern, and we have the benefit of hindsight that that observed behavior looks very different. And of course, then someone may only see one interaction with a student and this adult and not the repeated interactions.

So is that really your experience when these things, when these situations arise?

McGintee: Yes. I mean that’s exactly what we see. So you know, most colleagues and you know, students, they don’t observe the dramatic moment. They see maybe one hug or one ride home or one late-night text or one closed-door meetings. They’re seeing a snippet. And in isolation, it’s easy to explain that away. Oh, they were just being kind or oh, that’s just their way. Or oh, I’m not really sure if I saw it in the way that, you know, that could have been interpreted from an investigator’s perspective.

The picture really changes when you see all of these one-offs together in that pattern, and you see that multiple people have reported similar concerns over time, you see that the same student is getting the extra text, the rides, the gifts, the time alone with the adult. You see the slow escalation, which may have started, you know, with getting help on homework and then becomes more personal in nature.

So, you know, because bystanders are just seeing that sliver of conduct, it’s so important that you create a culture as a school where staff feel permission to report, even if, you know, it’s just a single concerning interaction and that they’re not staff aren’t having to decide, is this grooming in nature? That’s not their purview. And that, you know, then the school is in a position of being able to pull those pieces together that have been reported so that those bigger patterns can emerge.

When schools only act on the big allegation, they’re missing that long runway of smaller, explainable moments that, taken together, told a very different story.

Salko: So then how does someone who may be a colleague or may be in the school, observing this distinguish between maybe an educator being warm, supportive and engaged, which is what I think everyone wants educators to be, versus someone who’s beginning to move into that inappropriate territory.

McGintee: Yeah, that’s a great question. I mean, I think there’s some practical questions that usually make that line look a lot clearer. You know, asking, “Is the behavior transparent in nature or is it secretive?” So, you know, a healthy interaction would be something that could be observed. It could be, you know, a communication that communication could be copied to parents and parents could observe it, or to a supervisor.

And, you know, there wouldn’t be any discomfort with the with the message, even though it was transparent to others. Concerning behavior would look more like communications that are occurring on private channels behind closed doors, where the adult might say, “Don’t tell anyone about this” or the contact or the communication would be such that the educator wouldn’t want parents to know about it or their, you know, their dean to know about it.

Thinking about next whether the attention is proportional or whether it’s exclusive to one student. So is the educator warm and consistent, you know, with all of their students. Is the academic help that’s being given or the help and support that’s being given, is that something that’s tied to a school-related need? That, you know, that would not be that would not be problematic.

However, you know, if one student is getting noticeably more time, more favors, more rides, more gifts, and the relationship is being framed as special or different from others, that’s, you know, that’s a concern. And then also thinking about, you know, is this about the student’s needs or the educator’s needs. So healthy behavior would be looking at, you know, is the support focused on learning safety and age-appropriate encouragement for the student and the adult’s life is largely offstage to that?

Concerning behavior would be where the educator is leaning on the student for emotional support — when they’re sharing intimate personal problems of their own with the student, and seems to need that relationship to feel valued or understood. And then lastly, I would say, you know, is the behavior respecting the school’s policies and boundaries or stretching them? Healthy behavior looks like communication or physical contact, or any one-on-one time that fit within the school’s policies and professional norms.

Whereas concerning behavior involves, you know, frequent exceptions to these rules, especially where there’s been prior coaching.

Salko: OK. So then in your experience, what would be the difference between a true one-off lapse in judgment or maybe an extenuating circumstance and then that pattern that you’re talking about and when should that immediately raise concern?

McGintee: Yeah, I would say a true one off lapse and, you know, a concerning pattern do look very different when you kind of zoom out from them. A one-off lapse usually has, you know, a clear time-limited explanation. You know, maybe it occurred because there was, you know, a genuine judgment error on the part of the adult, a safety issue that caused, you know, the need to, you know, take a student in the car with them, for example.

It would be the behavior is out of character with the educator’s usual practice. So this would be something that would not be typical for this educator. And then lastly, once it’s flagged, the educator understands the concern and the behavior stops. So you don’t keep seeing the same violations or patterns of behavior.

A pattern looks different. So, you know, the concerns keep coming up more than once. They come up in different forms. Maybe there’s, you know, closed-door meetings. There’s extra favors. There’s text messaging, there’s rides being given.

There have been prior conversations or coaching with the educator, but the behavior continues or it kind of shifts rather than actually stopping. And then you do see that escalation over time. There’s kind of more privacy, more frequency of the behavior, more personal or physical contact occurring.

Salko: Thank you. I’d like to turn now just to a common scenario that we at United Educators see in our claims. And I want to ask you about it, if you would entertain me. Let’s say a classroom assistant in an elementary school setting is known for being the one who hugs students. They tussle hair. Maybe they occasionally put a hand on a student’s back while they’re talking, and other frequent non-sexual physical contact. And no single episode really sounds that extreme.

But some colleagues may even describe that person as affectionate or caring for their students. Why is this kind of repeated physical contact significant? And how does an investigator distinguish between appropriate role-based contact from that line-crossing conduct?

McGintee: Yeah, I think it’s significant for two main reasons. One is what it can feel like to the student, and the other is what it tells you about the educator’s boundaries. So even when it’s not, you know, sexualized in nature, constant touch can be intrusive. And some students have trauma histories, sensory sensitivities, cultural norms where the kinds of behaviors that you mentioned —hugging, hair tousling from, you know, a non-family member feels scary. It feels embarrassing. It’s unwelcome.

So when touch is frequent and assumed, students may not feel like because of the power imbalance with an educator, that they’re allowed to say “no".” And in cases where misconduct emerges later, there’s often a long lead-up of this kind of casual contact that made the escalation easier and also harder to spot.

So if the contact goes beyond what’s needed and what’s permitted by the school’s policy, even if no one is alleging that there’s sexual intent behind it, that’s a boundary problem that the school should be addressing.

Salko: OK, then. So what are the risks when multiple people may have noticed this sort of boundary crossing or inappropriate conduct, but then no one intervenes because it doesn’t yet seem “serious enough” to them.

McGintee: Yeah, I think a few things start to happen. So usually the behavior starts to escalate. And that’s because the adult often feels more comfortable pushing limits.

Students are more vulnerable. A student who may feel uneasy about it, about the kind of contact, but sees that nothing is being done about it, may assume that this is normal, and that they’re not going to get any help if they were to speak up about it and maybe, you know, are more nervous about the ramifications to them if they do speak up about this educator.

And then also the school’s risk increases substantially in these in these situations, when an investigator, an investigation, rather, later shows that people were worried about this kind of conduct for a while, and it appears that the school knew about it or should have known about it and failed to act. That raises significant legal, reputational, and cultural harm risks for the school. So those early concerns are exactly when the schools have the most power to step in and really prevent kind of larger scale damage.

Salko: Those are some good tips. Thank you. Well, here’s another pattern that we have seen in our claims. The concerning behavior this time takes place with an older student. And it happens in less supervised spaces. For example, a coach giving rides in cars, which you’ve mentioned a few times. A teacher allows, at a boarding school, a student to come into their living quarters. Or an advisor meeting with the student does so in a private office with the door closed and no visibility, or the theater director gives extra tips backstage in those quiet, dark spaces, these one-on-one environments. What makes these situations concerning? And would you identify some of these spaces as more high-risk than others?

McGintee: Yeah, I mean, anytime an educator is alone with a student in a less visible space or in an unsupervised situation like the ones that you’ve described, you know, there are fewer natural safeguards, right? So there are kind of no casual people, you know, no casual walk-bys that might interrupt or deter any type of inappropriate behavior that’s happening.

It’s creating an opportunity, and it’s also creating plausible deniability on behalf of the adult who’s engaged in that behavior If no one saw it, and it is blurring the professional role of the educator, especially when it’s happening with, you know, older students where there’s less of an age gap in some circumstances. So from an investigator’s perspective, I absolutely see these as higher risk environments, even when there’s nothing, you know, overtly sexual that’s been alleged.

And in these situations, I’m typically asking, “Was there a clear school-related reason to be alone in that space, or were there other safer alternatives to that space? And is this a unique or well-documented situation, or is it a regular habit with one student, or with a small group of students? And do the school policies explicitly limit or prohibit private one-on-one meetings? You know, car rides, you know, a student being in the teacher’s housing. And has this educator ever been coached on these things before?”

Again, schools don’t have to assume that there’s bad intent to even treat these high-risk contexts as a risk and address them in their policy. The safer approach is really to just set clear rules, you know, make sure that doors are open when an educator is meeting with a student in a one-on-one setting, make sure that windows are uncovered when students and teachers are meeting in spaces and that they are in readily observable spaces, you know, don’t permit teachers to give rides to students in their personal cars or access to their living quarters. And really then treating any exceptions to this as something that needs justification and documentation and oversight.

And that’s protecting students, and it’s also protecting educators in those settings from the potential for a false allegation being made, too.

Salko: No, that’s a good point, too. So obviously, when some people who do have bad intent put students in these situations, they are designed not to be observed and therefore they do become more difficult to police, I would imagine. So how can schools safeguard these spaces, which may be naturally more private, like an office, like backstage, in these situations?

McGintee: Yeah, I would say, you know, again, schools should set bright-line rules, you know, limits on personal car rides, access to faculty housing, prohibit closed door, one-on-one meetings and require approval and documentation. If there’s going to be an exception to one of these rules, the school should really look at their spaces on campus and build in visibility into those spaces.

You know, windows in doors, blinds open during meetings with students, leaving doors open when there’s one-on-one meetings, you know, making sure that spaces are, you know, observable, where teachers and students are meeting and then structuring in supervision for high-risk programs.

You know, clear protocols for travel, you know, trips, backstage, locker room areas, late-night practices, having policies where it’s required that, you know, two adults are present wherever possible, ensuring that educators are using school platforms to communicate with students. I see that come up a lot where there’s a default to, you know, communicating with students through text messages or apps that are not approved by the school. And that’s a real risk area.

And then lastly, I would just say, you know, again, it’s kind of this culture of normalizing reporting of, you know, concerns and training the community about that.

Salko: Oh, good. That’s important to have people feel like they can speak up. One area we’ve touched on I think a few times but I think is worth addressing and that is ripe for boundary crossings, is that area of digital communications, that private texting, social media, Snapchat, these disappearing message apps and those just the side channel communications in general. So you’ve obviously seen this behavior and I assume, and then what can schools do about that risk?

McGintee: Yeah we see this a lot. And I would say that this is a growing area of risk from an from our perspective as investigators, you know, private informal digital contact is one of the most common early warning signs. So those, you know, late-night texts, those direct messages that start about homework and then they’re drifting off into personal topics or, you know, an adult using Snapchat or disappearing messages or following or liking students’ posts on social media.

And anytime, you know, the communication is moving off school platforms so that, you know, it becomes more private, that’s a serious concern. This is a recurring feature in many of the investigations that we conduct. And, you know, the goal isn’t to ban all contact or all electronic contact between educators and students.

We know that that’s, you know, oftentimes how we have to communicate in this modern age, but it is to keep that contact and that communication professional, observable, and tied to school purposes rather than private, emotional, and untraceable.

Salko: Yes. And one thing we’ve talked about, but a striking pattern we see in our claims is that some of the alleged perpetrators had already been coached, warned, trained, spoken to informally before they engaged back in that same behavior or it as the behavior escalates. So what do schools do then? If someone is not abiding by some coaching?

McGintee: When you see that pattern that somebody has already been coached or warned and the behavior continues or escalates, that’s typically a turning point. At that stage, the schools need to shift from education to accountability and risk management. A few concrete steps that I typically suggest are moving from an informal discussion to a more formal disciplinary step. So stop relying on just a friendly reminder at that point. At this point, the behavior needs to be documented. There may be a written warning or further disciplinary action.

Also tightening up supervision and access that the educator has. So from an investigator standpoint, this documentation shows whether the issue is really one of just poor judgment that improves with structure, or a refusal to honor boundaries that signals a more significant issue.

Salko: OK. Thank you. Before we end this and wrap up, are there any areas or patterns that you’ve seen in your work that we haven’t addressed?

McGintee: Well, we’ve covered a lot. I would say minimizing boundary issues because it’s a highly valued adult. You know, we see that come up a lot. Somebody who’s been, you know, at a school for 20, 30 years, you know, a recognized member of the of the community. And, you know, I think oftentimes boundary issues can be overlooked because of, you know, an adult’s position within the school. Also, you know, bystanders not speaking up, not reporting concerns because they’re afraid of getting the person into trouble.

And I think these risk areas can really be mitigated by, again, creating a culture that supports reporting, that supports accountability and equity. So, no matter who is violating the school’s policies and professional standards that they’re, you know, those are being addressed.

Salko: That’s a good point. Well, before we end, are there two or three things you think schools should be implementing or strengthening right now to ensure that there are appropriate boundaries between their educators and their students?

McGintee: Yes. So I would say clear, concrete boundary rules. If you don’t have a boundary policy, you know, that should be some summer homework, especially for, you know, boundaries around digital communications with students and one-on-one time with students. So making sure that many schools have policies around kind of professionalism. But having a standalone boundary policy is really important.

Then, you know, this will take longer, but creating that culture of early reporting and consistent follow through. Normalizing that amongst your community that you want, you know, adults and students to, you know, to feel comfortable coming forward before there’s been an allegation and making sure that you have provided a channel for those concerns to be reported, that people know about that reporting channel, who they go to with concerns about boundary issues. And in order to do that, you really have to train everybody about that.

So you, you know, want to make sure that you are looking at your training programs and ensuring that you are, you know, training, not just your, you know, your faculty member, but everyone at the school about reporting processes, what types of things to be looking for. And, you know, oftentimes I find that using real scenarios really helps in those trainings, not just using kind of legal definitions, but really using, you know, actual scenarios that people may observe or people may encounter.

So, what do you do with the assistant coach who hugs every child or the, you know, educator who’s, you know, texting with a student, you know, at 11 p.m. Or another teacher who’s, you know, oftentimes meeting with a student behind a closed door.

So really giving your community and opportunity to walk through those scenarios, talk with them about how it would be addressed under your policy and giving an opportunity for discussion.

So I think if those areas can be tightened up for schools, those rules, you know, reporting channels and training, it will dramatically reduce risk and the chances of kind of hearing later that, oh yeah, we saw those things, but we didn’t act on them soon enough.

Salko: Yes. Thank you very much. These are very important and very helpful lessons in everyone’s quest to keep students safe. So I want to thank you, Kai, very much for sharing your experience and your expertise with us. Thanks for being here.

McGintee: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure, Heather.

Salko: I’d like to thank Kai McGintee of Aleta Law for joining us today for this enlightening conversation.

Host: From United Educators insurance, this is the Prevention and Protection Podcast. For additional episodes and other risk management resources, please visit our website at ue.org.