I didn’t mean to post anything else again today, but I was just checking the deadline for something and came across a residency at the Bridge School; a special needs school in Islington. This is a residency with studio, materials budget that involves teaching a 50% timetable. Payment is in the region of 12 – 13k as a 50% unqualified teacher’s salary would be..
But they are not looking to employ an unqualified teacher are they? They want a professional artist. How does that work then? They also state a desire for experience working with special needs – so although on an unqualified rate (lots of artists will never be qualified as a teacher!) they are looking for an art qualification and are asking for experience. So anyway, unqualified teacher/artist: it’s not the same thing and seems to be quite dangerous to presume that it is. It seems to also be presumed that the artist will be grateful at having an income and studio space guaranteed for a year and that they won’t expect to be paid more. Maybe lots of artists would be grateful? Does this kind of experience imply that the time they are giving you (by paying the same amount as a shop job), is part of the payment? I realise that schools have little spare cash and that this will probably be a great experience for someone.. but perhaps they need to have the resident for half the time and pay the same amount?
Anyway, it’s a lot better paid than most school-based residencies, but it still seems badly paid (even if you count the cost of a London studio at £200/month that only adds £2400 onto the value..). I would also be terrified at the 50% timetable requirement.. hopefully they give training for working with special needs children too. Having taught English in Japan for a couple of years (very different, yes I do realise..) and art workshops I have a very good idea of how long planning takes when you are inexperienced and are desperate to do a good job. I feel sure that for the first few months this 50% would end up being a full time job.
