Last week on her blog Report Card, Janet Steffenhagen revealed that 1st term (elected November 2008) Maple Ridge School Trustee Mike Huber’s eldest child is attending kindergarten at a private school.

Responsible parents make choices for their children that are in the best interest of  their children. When  one parent is a politician the public may have a legitimate interest in certain family decisions but that interest should stop at the point that it becomes a judgment of the choice itself.

Trustee Huber has publicly explained the reasons for the decision and they include access to all-day kindergarten, smaller class sizes and specialist music and Spanish teachers.

There is a fine line between the public and private lives of politicians.

Mike Huber should have been upfront about the decision to choose private schooling for their daughter, given he and his wife must have made the decision at least five months ago.

A considered decision on where to send a child to school does not happen overnight. The Huber’s appear to be responsible, caring parents and therefore it is likely they had already discussed the possibility of sending their child to private school when Mike was campaigning for election to the position of school trustee.

As near as I can determine, Huber did not publicly express any views on public versus private education during the election.

He topped the polls.

I have no difficulty with a public school trustee sending his or her child to an independant school.

However, this type of decision is highly indicative of the views and perspective of a trustee and it is important for the public to be aware of the views and perspectives of  their elected representatives before they head to the polls.

The entire issue runs headlong into the debate about the role of British Columbia school trustees and boards of education.

Maple Ridge Trustee Dave Rempel was interviewed for an article in Thursday’s Vancouver Sun:
“…Rempel, insisted it’s not right for trustees, principals or teachers to earn money in the public-school system and send their children to independent schools.”

I fundamentally disagree with Rempel’s point of view, as reported above, for three reasons.

First, a parental career choice may be a limiting factor (i.e. a job may determine where the family lives and salary may determine what a family can afford) when parents make decisions that affect their children but it would be nonsensical to start judging the ethics of private family decisions by extending an ill-defined, inconsistently applied, ideology around state delivery of education to those who are employed in the public service sector.  Also, do we really want to head down the slippery slope of telling people what legal and legitimate services and products they can and cannot spend their pay cheques on?

Second, everyone who is eligible to vote in a municipal election has a right to vote for the school trustees who will represent them on the local board of education. Parents with children in both private and public schools, parents who do not have K-12 aged children and citizens who do not have children and never plan to have children, all have an equal right and an equal vote. Trustees represent the entire community.

Third, the mandate of trustees and boards of education extends well beyond the walls of the mid twentieth century version of public education.  In the twenty-first century, we recognize education is a life long endeavor involving a variety of locations and delivery methods. We also now know effective education is tailored to the individual and  one-size-fits-all public education systems simply entrench existing inequalities and fail to help many children achieve their best.

Rookie politician Mike Huber, and his trustee colleagues across the province, have likely learned some lessons this last week. The line between public office and family choices is not always clear and the appearance of taking an unpopular side in a contentious issue, such as private versus public education, pretty much guarantees uncomfortable headlines.