"When Stones are Hurled:" a response to an article...

An article was posted earlier this week for those of us in the Central Valley community. It infuriated me. I couldn't understand exactly why, so I took my time to process. A colleague of mine, Julie Lucido (if you're Facebook friends with her, go check out her thoughts, because I agree with them), inspired me to finally focus on exactly what has me feeling how I feel.

This article was ill-fated from the moment “loophole" was used to describe the salaries, instead of consistently using “legal.” And once “legal” was established, there’d be no reason to continue with the interviews, research, and composing of the article unless the end game was to call into question the very legitimacy of arts educators getting paid that amount. But, imagine if the researched information had been used for good? This article could have served as a template, as a precedent for other arts educators to bring to their department chairs and administration to see if there was a way they, too, could earn more money for more work. But, instead, a craftily curated headline and a farrrrrrr too long article–too long because of the attempt to pad the ill-intent with stats and mentions of the accolades the program has been awarded–was used to garner clicks and views, like so many of my teenagers do with their TikToks and YouTube tutorials. Those are fine, they're not claiming to be Reporters. This is different. Had this article taken a positive stance to be used so more arts educators could possibly get paid more for more work, this article would have been applauded and actually useful. But the thesis statement is clear throughout: should these theatre educators get paid as much as they do? Well, they’re working for it. It’s above board, legal, AND supported by both administration and union (for those not in education: that dual-support is a rarity). 

Now I’m only a high school theatre teacher and theatre blogger, so what do I know? I do know that I’m proud of my position, and proud of the school I teach at. Being a public school teacher, my salary is public information. In addition to leading my program–with countless thanks and gratitude for my production team, and endless support from my administration and fellow educators–I also:

-am the lead coordinator for our Link Crew, where I’ve already spent 30 hours of my allotted 80/year just in prep for and leading our Freshmen Orientation

-am an assistant to our Campus Culture Director, a position I’ve proudly held for five years. It requires my support and working of our campus events including all the dances, football games, and senior activities.

-am part of our Climate and Culture Team, where we meet bi-monthly and plan events, execute a mission and vision for our campus, and support where necessary year-round.

This is all in addition to my "actual" job: teaching full-time theatre, coaching our Improv Team (four shows a year), and helming three mainstage productions a year. I am compensated for these additional positions and I feel valued for my hard work and know my commitment is rewarded beyond just a paycheck; again, I love where I teach. So if anyone were to call out in an interview, say six unnamed sources, or even named sources not in my program or school, I’d invite them to audit a class or rehearsal, or to shadow me for a week rather than sit back and provide pull-quotes for an article meant to belittle and dilute the quality of the work being done. I’d rather hear and read from those who know, not those who assume.

Lastly, only one student was interviewed in the article. One. The article relies on the stats of the hundreds of students taking many courses to prove its thesis, but only one was interviewed. How can one call into question the quality and worth of arts educators’ paychecks when the very people who directly know aren’t being brought into the reporting? I find this glaring absence of more student voice to be simply unethical and in favor of the writers’ thesis statement being prioritized over an honest evaluation. If a student comes to me and declares my work to be of low quality, I’ll listen. If my administration or a fellow arts educator calls out the quality of my program, I’ll listen. Anyone beyond that, honestly, means very little if anything. And yet this article gave significant real estate to these opinions.

In conclusion, perhaps arts educators are, as the kids say, “just built different.” Knowing one of the article’s subjects very well as a theatre colleague, I know he’s built different, and it’s in a positive way. How easy it is for those not in the classroom, not in the program, and not having benefited from the educator’s teaching to hurl stones from the outside. 

Now, had there been legal happenings, or even some creative unethical workarounds then sure, hurl away. But the article itself delegitimizes its own worth by declaring, early and often, that everything is above board, legal, and administration-and-union approved. And with that, here’s my thesis statement: this article is harmful. We arts educators are two-fold: we’re in the arts, which is often under attack and devalued; and we are in education, which is often under attack, insulted, and whose budgets are constantly reduced while we’re expected to simply deal with it. I can take the stones hurled from parents and guardians who don’t know better, and I can take the stones hurled from government officials who have never stepped foot in an artist’s or teacher’s shoes, but I refuse to take it from a self-proclaimed supporter of the arts, and neither should you.