It takes a Village, But Where Are the Villagers?

Remember Adrianna, a composite character from a previous article, constructed from a type that I have known in a number of cases in the course of my many years teaching inner city young people. She was born with an IQ of 125, tending toward gifted, and she began school all smiles. Throughout her K-2 years she demonstrated such a precociousness that teachers and her mother (Bertha) discussed jumping Adrianna ahead to Grade 4; they decided, instead, that she would participate in the “Gifted and Talented” program while continuing her socialization process with people her own age.

Bertha died when Adrianna was in Grade 5, and this set off a series of events whereby this highly intelligent girl and formerly avid student became a high school dropout, connected to the life of the street, pregnant by age 16. She had sought help from counselors and teachers, but little help had been forthcoming. Her family circumstances had certainly impeded her along a once promising path, but her village (community members and school staff) had also been inadequately responsive.

So we say that it takes a village, but where were the villagers in the case of Adrianna? Where are the villagers in the cases of so many young people of the inner city? Why do so few people have the sense of social responsibility that would be necessary if we were ever truly to live by the “it takes a village” ethos? The answer lies largely in the fact that in the United States we live by the conceit that we are rugged individualists who can pull ourselves up by the bootstraps when we run into trouble. If we need help, we are supposed to look mainly to family for help. We say, in fact, that family is all-important in bringing a child up the right way, and in tending to the needs of the young person while she or he is still at home. We have a social welfare system, but by comparison to the corresponding programs of Europe and scattered other countries of the world, our welfare initiatives are attenuated and offered grudgingly.

Our public school educators fall back on the family responsibility argument when students do not excel academically, or when problems of family and community bear down so hard on the life of a precious young person that staying in school becomes difficult. Especially when confronted with the failure of so many children of color, children from dysfunctional families, and children from economically challenged homes, those who dwell within the education establishment are wont to say, “But the children bring so many problems into the school that are not of the school’s making.”

What would be our response if, when we went to the doctor, she or he told us that, sorry, we had smoked too much, exercised too little, eaten the wrong foods, or just plain been born with an unlucky body? What if attorneys told us that, sorry, we just shouldn’t have committed the crime? If we are all rugged individualists who can depend on ourselves for help, or if our families should have been expected to deter us from medical and legal problems, these arguments would be entirely justified. But we go seeking the help of such professionals confident that they will assist us, without falling back on the argument that they can’t do anything for us until we or our families take more responsibility for our own predicaments.

And so it should be for people who claim to be educational professionals. If students come to school burdened by problems that stem from ineffective families and individual failings, then that is the nature of the particular clients in question. True professionals create programs that truly help the student get back on track. Any teacher worthy of the name will find a way to nurture the challenged student toward grade level performance in math and reading, and will impart a solid knowledge base to that student across a liberal arts curriculum that includes also natural science, history, government, geography, economics, literature, and the fine arts. Because if that student comes to school the victim of a familial or social disease, the educator who effects the cure stops the disease in its tracks, so that that young person goes on to prosper, nurturing in turn her or his own children, ending the cycle of poverty, becoming an asset rather than a burden to the village.

So abandoning the conceit of the rugged individualist and taking up the role of villager in the long run benefits the village itself. When families struggle, conscientious villagers come around. They take over, offering food for the body, the brain, and the soul. They make sure that the children of the family go forward to live happy and useful lives. And in so doing the responsible villager knows that while engaged in an act of altruism, the villager herself or himself receives multiple benefits, as well.

And thus we would all live higher quality lives if more effective public educators were to emerge. Most especially, we would reap benefit upon benefit if each teacher embraced the role of true professional and did everything that she or he needs to do to make sure that each student is the recipient of an excellent education.