"It takes a village to raise a child," the proverb says. But in many communities, the village isn't showing up. Schools are left to address challenges that extend far beyond education. Families struggle without support networks that previous generations could rely on. Children's needs exceed what any single institution can meet. The communal responsibility for children that the proverb invokes seems to have eroded, leaving schools and families more isolated than before. Examining why the village isn't showing up—and what might rebuild community responsibility for children—matters for everyone concerned about children's wellbeing.
The Missing Village
The "village" metaphor describes shared community responsibility for children. In traditional and historical contexts, extended families, neighbours, community institutions, and informal networks all contributed to raising children. Parents weren't alone; community members knew children by name, watched out for them, intervened when needed, and provided what families couldn't. This shared responsibility distributed burden and multiplied resources.
Contemporary conditions have weakened these traditional supports. Geographic mobility separates families from extended kin networks. Suburban design isolates households from neighbourly interaction. Dual-income necessities reduce time for community involvement. Technological change enables isolation that physical proximity once prevented. The structural conditions that supported village-style child-rearing have transformed.
Trust has declined between families and would-be village members. Fear of strangers, liability concerns, and uncertainty about appropriate intervention discourage community members from engaging with others' children. What might once have been welcomed as community support now seems like intrusion or risk. The social permission to be involved in children's lives outside one's own family has narrowed.
Professional specialization has replaced communal responsibility. Functions once performed by community members—teaching, coaching, counselling, supervising—are now professional roles. This professionalization brings expertise but also separates responsibility into institutional silos. The amateur village has been replaced by professional service providers, with gaps between professional jurisdictions.
Consequences for Children
Children need more relationships than nuclear families alone provide. Extended family, adult mentors, community connections, and peer relationships all contribute to healthy development. When these relationships are scarce, children have fewer resources for support, guidance, and opportunity. The village's absence leaves relational poverty even amid material sufficiency.
Vulnerability increases when fewer adults know and watch out for children. A child struggling at home may have no outside adult who notices. A child being abused may have no one to tell. A child needing guidance may have no mentor. The village's eyes on children provided protection that isolated family units cannot match.
Opportunity narrows when connections are limited. Who you know matters for opportunity; children without adult connections beyond their families have fewer people to open doors. The village provided networks that distributed opportunity more broadly; its absence concentrates opportunity among those with privileged family networks.
Consequences for Schools
Schools increasingly absorb functions once distributed across community. When village-style responsibility declines, schools become expected to fill gaps—providing not just education but nutrition, health screening, mental health support, socialization, supervision, and moral formation. This expansion of school responsibility strains institutions designed primarily for academic instruction.
Teacher roles expand beyond teaching. When children come to school hungry, traumatized, unsupervised, or struggling, teachers respond. They become de facto social workers, counsellors, surrogate parents, and community connectors. This expansion may be necessary but draws time and energy from educational functions teachers were trained for.
School budgets absorb social costs. Providing the services that missing villages once offered requires resources. Food programs, counsellors, support staff, and extended hours all cost money that could otherwise support academic instruction. Schools filling community gaps do so by diverting educational resources or accepting inadequate capacity for both functions.
Why the Village Isn't Showing Up
Time poverty constrains community involvement. Adults working long hours, managing complex households, and navigating their own stresses have limited capacity for community engagement. Volunteering with children, knowing neighbours, and participating in community institutions require time that many people don't have.
Fear and liability concerns deter intervention. Adults worry about accusations of inappropriate behaviour, lawsuits from injury, or criticism for involvement with children not their own. Institutions create rules that discourage intergenerational interaction. Risk-averse culture makes village-style involvement seem dangerous.
Individualism prioritizes private over communal responsibility. Cultural emphasis on personal achievement, family self-sufficiency, and private solutions discourages communal approaches. Needing community support may seem like failure; providing it may seem like intrusion. Individualist culture undermines village norms.
Segregation by age, class, and circumstance reduces cross-cutting community ties. Children spend time with age peers; adults with colleagues and similar-status neighbours. Opportunities for intergenerational relationships across circumstance boundaries have diminished. Without these cross-cutting ties, village-style mutual support can't develop.
Rebuilding the Village
Intentional community building can recreate some of what organic villages provided. Community programs that foster intergenerational relationships, neighbourhood initiatives that promote connection, and institutions that bring diverse people together can build village-like networks deliberately. This requires intention and investment that organic community once provided naturally.
Schools can catalyze community connection. Community school models position schools as hubs where various services and community functions come together. Schools that open to communities, host activities, and facilitate connections can help rebuild village-like networks around educational institutions.
Mentorship programs connect children with adults outside their families. Whether through formal programs like Big Brothers Big Sisters or informal community arrangements, deliberate mentorship provides relationships that missing villages once offered. These programs require recruitment, screening, and support but can address relational poverty.
Neighbourhood organizing rebuilds local connections. Block parties, community gardens, mutual aid networks, and neighbourhood associations create the local relationships that village-style support requires. Starting small—knowing immediate neighbours, participating in local initiatives—can build toward broader community connection.
Faith communities and cultural organizations provide ready-made communities. These institutions bring together people across generation and circumstance, provide structure for mutual support, and often explicitly value children's wellbeing. For those connected to such communities, village-like support may be more available than for those without such affiliations.
Policy Implications
Policies that support community involvement could help rebuild villages. Workplace policies enabling community participation, liability reforms that reduce risks of involvement, and community investment that creates gathering spaces and programs all affect whether villages can form.
Recognition that schools can't do it all should shape expectations. Loading social functions onto schools without resources doesn't solve problems; it creates expectations schools can't meet. Either adequately resource expanded school functions or rebuild community structures that share responsibility—but don't pretend schools can substitute for villages without support.
Investment in community infrastructure creates conditions for village formation. Parks, recreation centres, libraries, community centres, and gathering spaces provide physical infrastructure. Community development funding, program support, and neighbourhood investment provide social infrastructure. Without infrastructure, villages have nowhere to form.
Questions for Reflection
How much "village" exists around children in your community? Who beyond immediate family knows, cares about, and watches out for children?
What factors have weakened village-style community support in your experience? Time constraints, fear, individualism, or other factors?
What roles are schools in your community playing that might once have been distributed across community? How well are they managing these expanded expectations?
What would rebuilding the village look like in your community? What structures, relationships, or investments would be needed?
How do you personally contribute to village-style community support for children—including children who aren't your own? What enables or prevents greater involvement?