This is the third article in a series about dormitory education. The previous article presented some negative aspects of this growing trend.

Yeshivas compete against each other. One way to demonstrate superiority is by having the children come home “only” once a month, or even at greater intervals. The longer the child is in the grip of the yeshiva, the better its reputation. A yeshiva that allows children to come home every week or even more is not considered to be serious. After all, the child might receive too much influence from the family and not enough from the yeshiva.

The guidance offered by the yeshiva cannot be possibly as wise and personal as that offered by his parents (unless he comes from a dysfunctional family). Although the Yeshiva might be able to handle brief or passing issues that arise, the long term or serious questions or doubts in the child’s mind cannot be given the same intensive and careful care by the yeshiva as it would by a parent. Worse, the yeshiva might not even realize or take note of this situation with some children. It is inevitable that some children will receive more intensive care than others. The yeshiva might not realize that others have a problem and there is no way of knowing from season to season or year to year whether your particular child will receive proper guidance. It depends on how forceful or direct the child is or how much the child insists or demands on the contact or even acts out in order to receive this contact. It also depends on whether there is chemistry or things click between the yeshiva and the child.

Whereas if you would have your child at home on a regular basis you would notice things that need to be noticed more carefully and handle them with the strength and conviction of the child’s own parent. No yeshiva could possibly match how much a parent cares for his child.

Thus, the child may lose out on some educational aspects or philosophies or directions that a yeshiva or a boarding school might have to offer. However, these positive benefits must be weighed against the benefits that are to be offered on a human level, on a child growing up to be a contributing member of society and as a continuation of his own family, rather than as a continuation of the yeshiva, then the child is undoubtedly losing a great deal.

Thus, we consider two directions: Whether we want the child to continue the family’s own traditions or whether we want the philosophy of a yeshiva to continue.

Another factor is whether the parents visit the teachers regularly to encourage and beg them to do the job that should be done by the parents themselves. Your child is thus taking a great risk in yeshiva.

The next article in the series discusses the premature removal of a child from his home environment.