Meg Upton and Naomi Edwards also highlight the undervaluing, questioning and cost-cutting that education programs often face within arts institutions in their essay Education and the Arts: Creativity in the promised new order.

"Taking a program seriously means imbedding it as part of core company business," Edwards told Fairfax Media. "Very few theatre companies do that.

"Historically education programs have been used as leverage for funding but that funding hasn't necessarily found its way into the program."

The authors admit the paper is a provocation to the arts industry to consider why it wants to engage with the education sector.

To highlight the precarious positions some education programs are in, they point to changes at the Sydney Theatre Company and Melbourne's Malthouse Theatre.

"Good art and business practice demands constant reappraisal," they write. "But why, as is often the case, when arts organisations meet tough times, are education and community programs the most at risk?"

The STC rejected these criticisms and argued its restructure devoted more resources to teacher training, school programs and bringing students to mainstage shows.

"STC invests more than $1 million each year in educational programs, not including indirect costs across the organisation in supporting these programs," spokesman Tim McKeough said.

He said STC had also programmed challenging theatre for young people, including plays about youth violence, driving and suicide.

But Upton, a former education manager at Malthouse, said that on several occasions when a show was not selling well she had been asked to "find" a schools' audience. "Conversely, when a show was selling well, significant constraints would be placed around school audience access."

Both authors are well-placed to comment on arts education. Upton lectures in drama education at Deakin University and is a consultant teacher with the MTC and Malthouse. Edwards is a theatre and opera director and arts educator.

Their essay will be published in the November issue of Platform Papers, a quarterly series on arts published by Currency House, a non-profit publisher run by respected commentator Katharine Brisbane.

The authors point to research showing the value of arts education and the importance of theatre companies connecting to young people.

"Education programs, well resourced, valued and powerfully positioned within an organisation offer the opportunity to leave a living, breathing legacy of theatre-making practice and critical thinking in the young people they engage with in respectful and meaningful ways," they write.

The authors criticise companies for programming safe and bland work that fails to respect young audiences or to put "bums on seats".

"Students might only ever see one piece of theatre – companies need to make it the best one possible," Edwards said.

The authors claim education staff are paid low wages and frequently called upon to justify their program to artistic directors, management, marketing, philanthropy and boards.

"While all such personnel have had an education, they don't necessarily know or want to understand what an education program is," Edwards said. "It means kids in the building – that can be scary. And it means cheaper tickets which does impact on the bottom line. This is short-term thinking."

They also point to the downgrading of arts in the national curriculum.

"Why should theatre companies take their education programs seriously if governments, key organisations and peak bodies don't appear to appreciate arts education themselves?"