I often hear the argument that living a 'sheltered life' could be considered to be statistically justified i.e. the likelihood of your children 'veering from the correct' path is lower.
By 'sheltered' I mean restricting information/activities that could lead to a child denouncing his/her religion later on in life e.g. someone I know teaches in a girls' school; she is not allowed to mention the word 'pregnancy', the school sticks together (or blacks out) pages on biology/evolution, etc. These may be considered more on the fringe, but examples such as no internet/smartphones and restricted media access may be more prevalent examples.
Although a sheltered lifestyle may not offer the breadth that a parent would want, it could be considered a 'better guarantee' for children, at least for their earlier (or teen) years. Are there grounds for such an argument? Or is it worth the 'risk' of broadly educating children?
I do appreciate that each child should be educated according to his/her capacity and means, however, I am asking whether there are evidence based studies justifying living one way or the other. Or are such lifestyles too dependant on culture, tradition and upbringing to be considered a legitimate choice?
(Can I even venture to ask if there are any statistical studies on this topic?!)
In a nutshell, then: Are there any evidence-based studies pro- or anti-restricting information/activities that could lead to a child denouncing Judaism later on in life?