This is the ninth article in a series about dormitory education. The previous article explains the "institution" of Tipat Chalav.

We have seen that neither the parents nor the school can have full control over our children.

The parents gave birth to their children and expected to raise them in a particular direction. They wanted the children to be a continuation of your family. Therefore, the child should be at home as much as possible during his developmental years.

Yes, it does help when the philosophy of the yeshiva matches that of the family. However, it does not replace the family.

Parents should demand a reasonable compromise. They should raise the child to be a continuation of the family. They should send the child to a school that will allow him to remain at home, and they should hope that that school will not corrupt the family's direction.

There’s more. The first two decades of a child’s life are not the end of the child's study and learning. They may continue later on, depending on the strength of the initial patterning, their spouses, and other factors.

On the other hand, the family tradition and direction cannot be studied afterwards. They are factors that the child must feel and understand and become a part of when he or she is young. Thus, any loss in the development of tradition cannot be recreated at a later stage, and it cannot be studied in any books or with any spouse. There is no way to make up for this loss. It is gone forever and also for future generations.

Thus, a child who does not remain at home sacrifices irreplaceable traditions to be replaced by textbook learning that can be studied and continued later on in life.

It doesn’t make sense.

The next article in the series provides the response of those who run dormitory education programs.