An Examination of Low-Income Adult Students' Experiences in the Clemente Course in the Humanities

Background/Purpose: Low-income adults are increasingly targeted for vocational training and basic education courses, which are often dubiously marketed as pathways out of poverty. The Bard College Clemente Course in the Humanities (Clemente) has little in common with the market-driven ideology that undergirds most adult learning today; instead, it is built on the belief that liberal education can offer students the possibility of personal change by fostering critical reflection. At 30 sites across the US, Clemente provides marginalized adults a free, yearlong, college-credit bearing course in the humanities. Requirements for potential students are few; they must be ≥ 18 years old, able to read a newspaper, and live in a household with an income ≤ 150% of the Federal Poverty Level. This project examines: (1) How do students change or develop, if at all, through their participation in Clemente?  (2) What is the relationship, if any, between students’ course participation and their engagement as citizens and, where applicable, as parents?

Methods: Data for this two-year ethnography were gathered through: (1) Participant observation of two course sites in Chicago and New York City,  (2) In-depth interviews with students, graduates, drop-outs, and staff in Chicago and NYC,  (3) Telephone interviews with students, graduates, and staff at other US sites,  (4) Focus groups with course directors.  All told, data include ~400 hours of participant observation and interviews with students and staff (n=105). Course participants were low-income adults of color; on average, 39 years old; and 80% women.  Interviewees were recruited through conversations with the researcher and emails sent from course directors on behalf of the researcher. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically coded in NVivo. 

Results: Most students report that the Clemente experience was personally transformative.  They came to see themselves as capable, critical-thinking intellectuals; interacted more positively with their children; and set goals for themselves.  Students were more likely to access the humanities in their communities and felt they belonged in environments that before seemed off-limits. Nearly all students reported increased confidence, and some reported gaining a more purposeful sense of direction for their lives. Graduates frequently talked about finding new jobs, returning to school, joining community groups, and traveling – all of which may spur students to more fully participate in the economic and political aspects of their communities.

Conclusions/Implications: This study adds to our knowledge of how to better engage disenfranchised adults as democratic citizens and parents and demonstrates how rigorous educational opportunity – not remedial or compensatory programs – can spur personal transformation and consciousness-raising. At its inception, social work was deeply committed to providing social and educational opportunities for the poor.  Hull House saw the value in the humanities, and led concerts, lectures, and free courses in art, literature, and history.  Social work has largely moved away from this mission, and the notion of liberal education as a tool for citizen development is no longer in its purview. This study, however, demonstrates that liberal education can act as an effective intervention in the lives of the disaffected poor.