Ideally, arts education is delivered best by a powerful combination of certified arts teachers, classroom teachers, and cultural organizations, including teaching artists....Where there are not enough certified arts teachers available, it would be hard to fault a school that chooses to hire teaching artists as an alternative.Theatrewise, on the one hand, increased hiring of freelance "teaching artists" is good news for those actors who sideline as that. On the other, I bet a fair amount of artists are also full-time (and "certified") arts education teachers in the school system and need those full time jobs with their benefits.
[But] An expansion of outsourcing as described by the LA Times piece will only serve to balkanize the arts education field.
The article was not very well put together, I am afraid. It doesn't really do much but give the impression that any actor can teach K-12. In that respect, it does a terrible disservice to the field of educational theater. It may very well be that the two actors that the schools have hired are highly trained, but there is no mention of that in the article. Each actor may be half the price of the licensed theater teacher (and yes, the article only implies that there were licensed theater teachers previously), but we have no idea about frequency of instruction or anything else.
So let's hope even the reliable education jobs out there that so many artists subsist off of don't also get downsized.
Anyone with experience in this area want to weigh in?