[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape the teacher

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 152397

Replying to more than one post at once - Joe Goodwin, then Dan, then 
houyhnhnm.

On 17 May 2006 at 5:35, Joe Goodwin wrote:

> 
> Shaun Hately <drednort at alphalink.com.au> wrote:    
> The thing is - as I have said previously, I *benefited* greatly from some
> Snape-like teachers I had as a child. 
> <SNIP>
>    
>   Joe: Thats fair enough but how many of your fellow students
> educations suffered because of the method that allowed you to
> flourish. 

Shaun:
And I come back to the questions why are those kids more important 
than kids like me? Why does every teacher in every school have to be 
the type of teacher they need, rather than the type of teacher I 
needed?

I was seriously and severely harmed by aspects of my education - to 
the extent that I developed severe clinical depression that I will 
probably never completely recover from (with a lot of help, I have 
substantially recovered to the extent that this isn't a limiting 
factor in my life anymore, but it's still there hovering around the 
edges.) Eight years of largely inappropriate education, culminating 
in a year of total educational hell left me on the brink of suicide 
- and that's a very serious statement. I know a fair bit about being 
harmed by teachers.

*But* the vast majority of the children who were in those classes 
with me over those eight years of schooling were not harmed by those 
teachers. Many flourished under them.

Should the fact that I was being harmed - and I was - mean that none 
of those kids should have got the education they received and 
benefitted from? Why would it have made one iota of sense for them 
to be penalised in favour of me? I don't believe it would have. I 
believe - and I really wish - that steps should have been taken to 
try and reduce the negative impact on myself - but not by denying 
other children the benefits they were receiving.

And the same applies in reverse when I talk about the Snape-like 
teachers. I benefitted from them. And I believe I had every right to 
have some teaching in thirteen years of schooling that addressed my 
needs rather than addressing everyone elses.

And, as it happens, I don't know of anyone who was in those classes 
with me and my Snape-like teachers who would say that they were 
harmed by those teachers. Some of them didn't *like* the classes. 
Some of them *hate* the teacher. But even they acknowledge they 
learned from him. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere someone feels 
they were harmed in those classes - but if so, they are a real 
minority. And I was part of the minority harmed in a lot of my 
classes that benefitted other kids, and it seems that I'm just 
supposed to always accept the greater good. And, in fact, for the 
most part I do. I think it is pretty much impossible for every class 
in every school to be good for every single child who takes it.

I just think every kid should have at least some classes that work 
for them - and I only had a few. And some of those were the ones 
taught by Snapes. Get rid of those teachers, and I'd have had even 
less.

>   Joe: No your needs were important but that shows one of the great
> flaws of Snape. A good teacher is able to reach out to almost all
> students. 

Shaun:
Yes, but *almost all* isn't the same as *all*. And frankly, I don't 
see any reason to assume that Snape isn't able to reach out to most 
of his students as a teacher. Yes, I think there's another evidence 
to say that he can't do this with Neville. But Neville is one 
student. He's not a majority of students. Neville has particular 
issues that mean he has a lot of problems in a lot of classes - they 
do seem to be more acute in Snape's classes, and I think Snape's 
method of teaching not meshing with Neville's needs has a lot to do 
with that, but the fundamental issues are with Neville. Not with 
Snape.

The evidence we have is that most students do well in Snape's 
classes. He does seem to be a successful with most of his students.

Now, I'm not sure that I would call Snape a good teacher. But 
frankly, most teachers aren't good teachers in my view. You have a 
few good ones, you have many competent but average ones. And you 
have a few bad ones. While I wouldn't necessarily put Snape into the 
top group (I'd need more evidence for that), I certainly wouldn't 
put him into the bottom group. Teachers like Binns, Trelawney, and 
Umbridge - I would class them as bad teachers. 

Binns and Umbridge don't teach - they simply provide a venue for 
students to learn (and, of course, with Umbridge, you also have the 
added evil aspect), and, though Trelawney does have some prophetic 
abilities, she seems to make up a lot of her classes as she goes 
along - I don't think she's as bad a teacher as Binns or Umbridge, 
because at least some of what she teaches seems to be based on real 
theory (whether it's good theory or bad). 

> Shaun:
> I sometimes wonder - those people who are so opposed to Snape's teaching
> methods - what do they make of kids like me? Do they think we're unimportant?
> Or do they think we're delusional and utterly mistaken about what worked for
> us and what didn't?
>    
>   Joe: 
> Sorry but I'm not really sure what your point here is

Shaun:
Well, let me try and clarify it then. (-8

My point is that it seems to me (and this is just my impression) 
that many of those who believe Snape is a 'bad teacher' seem to be 
basing that belief on a view that Snape is harming some of his 
students (or at least one of his students), and that this fact 
overrides all other facts. That it doesn't matter what else is 
happening in Snape's classroom - if Neville is unhappy (or Harry is 
unhappy; or Hermione is unhappy) that means he shouldn't be allowed 
to teach. 

To them, the possibility that other children in those classes might 
be learning and learning well from Snape, doesn't seem to have any 
value or importance at all.

As I say, this is just my impression of some of the anti-Snape-the-
teacher grouping.

To me, the only way I can see that type of viewpoint making sense is 
if they have decided one of two things.

(1) That it's actually impossible that anybody else could be 
benefitting from Snape's classes.
(2) That it doesn't matter if anybody else is benefitting from 
Snape's classes.

I'm not saying that there aren't other possibilities besides these 
two - just that these two are the two that are apparent to me.

Well, with regards to the first, more than one person on this list, 
even over the last couple of days - has made it clear that they did 
benefit from teachers like Snape in their own education. I'm one of 
them, but I'm not the only one.

So if there are people who hold the first view above, it seems to me 
that they must think we are delusional or mistaken about what 
benefitted us and what didn't. 

And, with regards to the second - if people are putting other 
children's needs above the needs of those kids who are like me, and 
like the other people who say they benefitted from such teaching - 
then I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that they think we're 
less important than other kids - and that our needs can be 
sacrificed for the sake of other children.

Well, I've been there - years of my life in an education system that 
had explicitly decided that my needs had low priority or no 
priority. And that system almost killed me. And it did kill friends 
of mine. So it's a view I find somewhat disturbing to be honest. 

Now, I am not saying these are the views that those who support the 
idea that Snape is a bad teacher hold. There may be many other 
possibilities. But I do wonder sometimes.

 
>   Shaun:
> <SNIP>
> First of all, I just want to start with two little quotes - at least one of
> which I have shared before. This first quote comes directly from my most
> Snape-like teacher (a decade and a half after he taught me, I find him quite
> easy to talk to) when I mentioned to him that I compared him to Snape and used
> him as an example of how a Snape-like teacher could be a good thing. He agreed
> with me that he was like that, and other people had made the comparison. Later
> on he sent me an e-mail with further discussion of this and I asked his
> permission to quote this little paragraph.
> <SNIP of the quote, go UPTHREAD to read it>
> 

Shaun:
>   Joe: So he is the best eh? Does he have any documentation for that
> or just a inflated sense of self worth? I take it he teaches at a boys
> school because otherwise he just ignored a bit more than half the
> population. 
 
Yes, he does teach at a boys school. And, as it happens, he is 
regarded as just about the best teacher of classics in the country - 
the marks his students receive reflect that, and his colleagues 
readily acknowledge it. But, I would say he also does have a rather 
inflated high opinion of himself that borders on arrogance. It just 
happens to be at least partially justified.

>   Joe: Sorry but I got the impression he was more interested in
> maintaining his perhaps self appointed title than making a real impact
> in people's lives. 

Shaun:
Oh, no, he isn't. I'm sure he'd be annoyed if someone usurped his 
position - but he really is absolutely dedicated to his students 
academic needs.

>   Joe: Sorry but I am male and a former US marine. I have no problem
> with a hard nosed approach to learning in many cases. The major
> problem I have that makes me say that Snape is a terrible techer is
> that he has only one approach. 

Shaun:

Well, that's an interesting perspective, and it's one I agree with 
to some extent. We don't really see any evidence that Snape 
differentiates his teaching.

But we also don't see any evidence that McGonagall differentiates 
her teaching. Or that Binns does. Or that Flitwick does. Or any 
other Hogwarts teacher for that matter.

And, honestly, I would be moderately surprised if they did do much 
in the way of differentiation, given the model of school that 
Hogwarts is based on. It's a model that isn't that familiar to a lot 
of people today, and especially, I would say, not to most Americans 
(simply because this model did spread over much of the British 
Empire only after the US had successfully left that Empire). But 
it's a highly successful model of education in general terms. But it 
does have a specific flaw that it is very much sink or swim 
historically. The model is the class British Public School model.

(Note - today, many of these schools most certainly do differentiate 
- but historically they didn't, and Hogwarts presents very strongly 
as a school based upon the historical model of such schools).

I don't think the problem is with Snape, specifically here - it's a 
general problem that this type of school has. That the students are 
expected to adapt to the methods of the school, rather than the 
school adapt to the methods of individual students.

We just don't see differentiation of teaching at Hogwarts. It 
doesn't have a 'Special Education' program or anything similar to 
that.

Did Trelawney adapt her classes to suit Hermione? No, she didn't.

When Neville expresses disbelief that he will do well in his exams, 
does McGonagall indicate she's going to adapt to his needs? No, she 
just tells him he needs more confidence - *HE* is the one who will 
have to change. Not her.

Joe:
>   It is his JOB to teach as many students as possible as much
> knowledge as possible and to do what is needed in each case. You can
> say he acts like he does to help educate the students of Hogwarts but
> if he were really concerned with every student then he would alter his
> methods when he found that his original ideas were not working. 

Shaun:

I'm not sure that I would say Snape is concerned with every single 
student. I think Snape is concerned with the performance of his 
students as a group. And I do think the evidence is that he teaches 
most of his students successfully. Neville is an exceptional case.

Now, would I like to see a teacher reach out to the exceptional 
cases? Yes, I would. But not at the expense of every other child in 
their class.

And if Snape's methods work for most of the class, then changing 
them for Neville would be at the expense of those other children. 

Joe:
>   But he doesn't alter them to fit the particular student. What he
> does is totally destroy what potential exists in those that do not
> respond to his teaching methods. It is his JOB to adapt his method to
> maximize his effectiveness but he doesn't because he doesn't care. 

Shaun:

'Maximise his effectiveness'?

There are twenty children in Snape's classes (at least that's the 
number that canon seems to indicate). If 19 of them are learning 
well, and one isn't, then changing the way the class is run to meet 
the needs of that one child over the needs of the other nineteen is 
not likely to be maximising his effectiveness. If one kids marks go 
up, and nineteen kids marks go down, that's not a more effective 
form of teaching. Now - probably it's not nineeteen kids. Maybe 
there's five kids in the class who particularly benefit from Snape's 
teaching style, fourteen who would do just as well with a different 
style, and one for whom the style is wrong.

Even then, changing to meet that childs needs does not maximise the 
teachers effectiveness. it reduces it. One kid is now getting an 
education that better meets their needs - and five have lost access 
to something they were benefitting from.

These things aren't zero sum equations. Changing a classroom to meet 
the needs of the lowest achieving student doesn't automatically have 
a beneficial effect, or even a neutral effect for every other child 
in the class.

Don't get me wrong - I do think that kids who need special 
assistance should get that special assistance - and there's precious 
little sign that this happens at Hogwarts in any class. But you 
don't provide that assistance by changing the whole classroom to one 
targeted to their needs, from one that was already addressing the 
needs of other students in the class.

People want to argue that Neville deserves more help than he gets - 
I'd be behind them all the way. But the idea that a teacher who may 
be teaching 95% of their students succcessfully should change their 
methods away from those that are working for 95% to those that would 
work for 5% is not one that I think makes any sense.

I think Neville should get extra help, somehow, outside of Snape's 
classes. But the whole class cannot and should not be changed just 
for him. Nor should the teacher.

Bear in mind that Snape is just one teacher - and Potions is just 
one class. I would be utterly horrified if every teacher at Hogwarts 
was like Snape. That would be an absolute disaster for a student 
like Neville. They wouldn't learn anything at all.

But one class among many...

Out of the dozens of teachers I had as a child (and I did have 
dozens because I attended a fairly large number of schools) less 
than half a dozen were at all Snape like. They constituted about 
half the teachers I learned well from.

Even in the last few years of my schooling, where I was finally 
getting something like the education I needed, less than half my 
teachers in any given year were meeting *my* needs as a student. I 
still had to endure at least one or two classes every year that were 
completely and totally *wrong* for me. But the fact that I had 
*some* that were right for me, was at least something. My schooling 
went from being a total hell to periods of good and periods of bad. 
And that was fine.

If there hadn't been these Snapes in my school - I wouldn't have had 
anywhere near the amount of 'good' experiences I had. But they were 
still a minority of my experiences.

And that might be why I put so much store in them. Because they were 
so rare.

For Neville - for the other students at Hogwarts - Snape is on 
teacher. Potions is one class.

A *lot* of people going through their schooling have to deal with a 
lot worse than *one* teacher and *one* class that isn't right for 
them.

A child has ten teachers - nine of whom teach classes in a way that 
is good for him or her, and one who teaches classes in a way that is 
bad for him or her.

Another child in the same school has the same ten teachers. Nine of 
whom teach classes in a way that is bad for him or her, and one who 
teaches classes in a way that is good for him or her.

And that one in both cases is the same teacher. Just different kids 
with different needs.

Take away that one teacher and replace him or her with another one 
who is similar to the other nine - the ones you have decided are 
good teachers.

Have you really made much difference to the kid who was already had 
nine teachers who were meeting their needs?

Because I can tell you - you've probably made an incredible 
difference to the child who's just lost the only teacher that was 
given them anything at all.
   
> Shaun:
> Stress improves learning in males - but impairs it in females (again, this is
> a generalisation - Sax actually devotes quite a bit of time towards the end of
> his book looking at some reasons why the generalisations are not always true,
> but as generalisations they do work).
> 
> The point is though - that gender may make a difference here to the way some
> of us are seeing Snape's teaching style. 
>    
>   Joe: 
> Hogwarts isn't a normal school either. It is almost a hybrid of 
> normal school and vocational school. In it's vocational aspect 
> Snape's JOB is to train people to be able to use Potions in 
> certain professions and to attract students to want to consider a 
> career in Potions. 

Shaun:

Again, that's an interesting perspective - but I think it's a rather 
American one to be honest. I would never describe Hogwarts as a 
vocational school - it is very much, in my view, modelled on the 
British Public Schools (and I have gone into a lot of detail as to 
why I hold that view at other times - 
http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/HSWW.html ) and these were not 
vocational schools. Yes, some of their students went straight from 
school into a career and they sought to equip them for those 
careers, but that didn't make them vocational schools.

This is a very particular model of school that really isn't as well 
known or understood in the United States as in other English 
speaking countries, again because the US had left the British Empire 
before the explosion of these schools in the mid-nineteenth century 
(some of these schools are older than that - far older but that was 
the period when most of their 'modern' characteristic developed). 
They are not typical schools - only a relatively small minority of 
children attend them - but it's far from a vocational model.

On 17 May 2006 at 14:34, tbernhard2000 (Dan) wrote:

> Shaun wrote:
> 
> > But I do know that a teacher can have all the appearances of Snape
> (and more) and really still have his students in mind.

Dan:
> This is not disciplinarianism we're talking about, though, but in
> class prejudice against certain students. Was your teacher afraid of
> any of the boys parents, as in a Lucius Malfoy? Did he have a pet, as
> in Draco? These are the things that stick out for me...

Shaun:
Actually I think this teacher probably was afraid of certain boys 
parents yes - the main boy who bullied me that year was the son of a 
prominent barrister, who gave a lot of money to the school 
(fortunately he was nothing like Lucius Malfoy - when he eventually 
found out what his son was doing, he was decidedly *unimpressed*). 
Did he have a teachers pet? Yes, he did.

So did a lot of teachers - the ones I encountered who were best at 
playing favourites were the ones that I've described as the 'fluffy 
bunny' teachers. And I certainly don't think teachers should have 
pets, but it is separate from their general teaching styles. It's a 
mistake any teacher can make, regardless of how they teach.

But really, with Snape, I don't see a prejudice against certain 
students. I see a prejudice against Harry Potter, specifically, but 
that is a very specific and special case based on bad experiences 
with Harry's father. Special cases always complicated things.

Shaun:
> > When I first encountered this man, I was a clinically depressed 13
> year old who cried at the drop of a hat
> 

Dan:
> Thank you for the personal perspective. I've read it numerous times on
> this list. It identifies your argument as substantially a personal
> testimonial, though, and the differences from Rowling's work are
> evident. Harry is not clinically depressed, for example.

Shaun:

The point is, Dan, that I was made that way by teachers. My 
depression didn't develop out of nowhere - it was a product of very 
bad educational experiences. Experiences that came at the hands of 
teachers who I think most of the people who dislike Snape as a 
teacher, probably would have praised as being ideal teachers. They 
were sweet, they were kind, they were gentle. And they seem to have 
taught most of the kids in their classes well. They were just wrong 
for me.

(As it happens, I think there's quite a good chance, Harry is 
clinically depressed when he starts at Hogwarts, though only mildly 
- but I was actually comparing myself to Neville here - emotionally 
my initial reactions to this man were similar to his to Snapes - 
though I think internally I handled them differently from Neville, 
which is why I got over them).

Is my argument a personal one? Yes, in a very real sense it is. But 
I work with other kids who'd have had very similar experiences to my 
own. And I have taught kids like that. This is not a unique 
experience. Some kids just do not flourish in the type of classroom 
environment that others do flourish in.

Some need the bunnies. Some need the Snapes.

> > I can't demonstrate this statistically but I do have the impression
> that most of those who express a dislike for Snape *as a teacher* on
> this list are female, and most of those who express support for his
> teaching style as valid are male. 
> 
> Shaun, this is impossible to say. I'm male, and I think Snape is a
> nasty cow. We CAN say that most of the people on the list are female.
> My own impression is that more men hate Snape, in fact. Not ALL of
> this can be attributed to the Rickman effect. :)

Shaun:

I'm not talking about whether people like or dislike Snape (-8

I'm talking about whether or not people like or dislike Snape's 
teaching style. There's a *big* difference between the two.

Some of the teachers who crippled me with their teaching were very 
nice people. The woman who did me the most damage and almost killed 
me broke down on my mother's shoulders when she was finally 
convinced of what she'd done. She was a lovely lady, and if I'd met 
her outside of a classroom, I'm sure I would have liked her a lot.

And with regards to my Snape-like teachers - there's only one of 
them that I could say I liked. As a child I hated two of them - 
that's receded over time but I still don't like them. There's a big 
difference between liking a person as a person and liking or 
disliking their style of teaching. A big difference.

But I certainly can't prove my impressions as I said - it might be 
interesting at some point to set up a survey on this, and there may 
actually be a reason to do so when I'm writing my thesis. But it is 
my impression.
 
Dan: 
> And the context for "working well" really defies analysis - I'm
> certain the lives of adolescents are affected by their teachers in
> countless ways - does the study say, for example, that it works well
> with boys because they internalize the criticism differently, and act
> out against, for instance, other boys at recess? These studies are
> quite silly, at some point. Look at the internal processing of Harry
> after using the frightening slasher curse in HBP - he's not
> internalizing Snape's voice, but remembering a voice we've heard long
> before - he internal ethical compass, as it were. I'd trust that with
> my life more than some side-effect of a disciplinary teaching style.

Shaun:
Well, no, it doesn't defy analysis. These things are studied 
extensively, and while it's moderately tricky to design studies that 
really address the issues you want to address, it is done quite 
routinely.

And if you don't study them, all you wind up with is gut calls based 
on your own experiences - and those are so individual. I'm going to 
be teaching full time inside a year. Would people really want me 
basing my teaching entirely on my gut calls and own experiences? (-8

But working out what it happens - that's where you do get 
controversy. Some people think it's a genuine biological difference. 
Others think it's cultural. Many thinks it's a combination. They do 
look in detail to try and work out why these differences occur. It's 
not enough that they just say that they do.

And it's not one study by the way - a quick count through Sax's 
footnotes reveals at least six studies he used on sex differences 
and this issue, in writing this section of his book.

Dan:
> Again, as you identify, we would need to define our terms much more
> clearly. Learning math? Learning how to instruct others? Learning what
> is good or bad? When is humiliation good, or when does it work in
> instruction? What part of teaching is the instruction in so-called
> facts and what is the passing along of beliefs about reality, that may
> be different in 10 years? Which students strive to grasp the
> transient, and which are focussed where on something less passing,
> like literature, say? Who has stress at home, in the dorms? What is
> the nature of the external stresses affecting each student? How does
> that mix with Snape's teaching? Etc. etc.

Shaun:
Sure, all these things are valid fodder for study. And quite a few 
of them have been studied, though I doubt all of them have. It is a 
complicated thing - but the point is, because it's complicated, 
people going around and simply saying things like 'Snape is a bad 
teacher' seem to me to be making awfully simplistic statements about 
a very complicated issue. And very few people seem to call them or 
that.

I get called on it, apparently, for taking the opposite position - 
and there's no reason I shouldn't be - but there seems to be a 
largely uncritical acceptance of the 'Snape-as-bad-teacher' thesis. 
And I don't think it's that simple, and, in fact, I think its 
potentially damaging.
 
Dan:
> Well, the fact that males learn better with stress-producing teachers
> than girls doesn't mean ANYTHING about how men and women appreciate
> any particular style of teaching. These are separate things.

Shaun:
Actually it means a lot to some of us. It may not mean anything to 
you, but it certainly does to me. I base my appreciation on a 
teachers style of teaching largely on whether or not it is 
effective. And if it is effective for me, it's very easy for me to 
see that style as effective (if it's not effective for me, I need to 
look deeper and see if it's effective for anyone else - and I do 
endeavour to do that - but if it worked for me, I don't need to look 
for external evidence that it can effective).

If a higher proportion of males than females know from their own 
experiences that such teaching worked for them, it's going to be 
much more likely that they see it as a valid style - because people 
do give their own experiences a special primary in forming their 
opinions, and most don't look much deeper than that. Most people 
don't need to - most people have no need to know the intricacies of 
pedagogical style in their daily life.

On 17 May 2006 at 17:51, houyhnhnm102 wrote:

> houyhnhnm:
> 
> I think class expectations and age both play a part, too.  I went to 
> working class elementary schools, then I was in the honors program in 
> high school with a lot of kids from the other side of the tracks.  
> The teachers I had for honors classes were all very confrontational 
> and demanding.  They were all either Snapes or McGonagalls. You could 
> be ripped apart in front the whole class for turning in mediocre 
> work. The conclusion from my own experience is that "socialization" 
> (=compliance) is the expectation for working class and low income 
> kids (and for females!)  Academic excellence is only expected from 
> rich kids (because they have to get into good universities).  And too 
> often, in math and science, only from males.  Academic excellence 
> requires tough, demanding teachers.

Shaun:

I think there may well be a lot of truth in this. I encountered the 
Snape-like teachers at a school that is regarded as one of 
Australia's most prestigious, and 'elite' independent schools, and 
which does see it as part of its mission to create society's 
leaders. I come from a working class background and up until I went 
to this school, my education had been in very working class schools 
- not underresourced schools or 'bad schools' or anything like that 
- they were quite well equipped, but the kids came from working 
class areas. And the attitudes in the schools were different. 
 
houyhnhnm: 
> I would also like to point out that none of the students at Hogwarts 
> are "children" in terms of their stage of intellectual development.  
> Even the first years, at 11 years of age, are already in early 
> adolescence and, therefore, transitional between concrete and formal 
> thinking (assuming they are like Muggles in their intellectual 
> development which I think is a reasonable assumption.  If anything I 
> would expect Wizard children to be a little on the precocious side).

Shaun:

Ack - you had to bring Piagetian levels into it (-8 (Sorry - I've 
just had to do a major assignment bringing them in obsessively and 
part of the reason I am active on the list again is to try and 
recover from that!). But, yes, I think this is relevant.

The students at Hogwarts are undergoing their secondary education. 
Our indications are that there is no university system in the 
Wizarding World, though there does seem to be further training in 
some areas. There's no 'middle school mentality' of the type that 
pervades American education, and which for good or ill is spreading 
into other school systems around the English speaking world which 
treats early adolescence as time where children are almost in a 
holding pattern with regards to their education and only puts the 
pressure back on when they hit 14 or 15. From the age of 11, these 
children (and I think they are children although I use the term 
somewhat differently from a lot of people and it doesn't have the 
same connotations for me as many people seem to give it) are into 
the most important stage of their education. What they learn 
matters.

They are part of a society that has decided that 11 year olds are 
old enough to be away from their mothers, to be sent to an isolated 
school, where quite frankly, adult supervision seems to be rather 
limited and only there as a last resort. This isn't a society 
obsessed with the emotional health and development of its children. 
I don't think they view it as unimportant, but I think they assume 
that it will handle itself for the most part, and you don't need to 
base everything you do on ensuring it for the minority who might 
have problems. That may not be a good thing - as other features of 
the Wizarding World may not be a good thing either - but it is the 
way that things seem to be.

This is a school where 11 year olds are left largely to their own 
devices outside the classroom. This is a school where 11 year olds 
serving a detention can find themselves going into a forest where a 
half giant finds it necessary to carry a weapon when entering.

Hogwarts isn't a creche. It is a school. It is *the* school. Where 
Wizarding Britain gets its leaders from. A small society hidden away 
inside a much larger one probably can't afford to have too many weak 
links. It can't afford to coddle its children.

And more than that - this is a society between two wars. Between two 
periods of terror. Dumbledore as Headmaster is planning for the 
second war from the moment the first war ends. This is a school with 
a Headmaster who believes that evil is out there and will return and 
the children in his care are going to have to deal with that. There 
isn't time to coddle these children, nice though that would be.

Whatever else happened to Neville Longbottom, the overriding truth 
is this.

That no matter how much damage might have been done to his psyche in 
Snape's classes, Hogwarts has helped to produce a 15 year old boy 
who, with his face smashed in, and a borrowed wand in a trempling 
hand *STILL* runs towards the Death Eaters.

A 15 year old boy who held in the grip of the Death Eaters, faced 
with the threat of the agonising curse that sent his parents insane, 
is still fighting and still telling Harry not to give the Death 
Eaters what they want to save him.

This is a boy who should have been coddled?

"'It's time you learned the difference between life and dreams, 
Potter.' said Malfoy. 'Now give me the prophecy, or we start using 
wands.'

"'Go on then,' said Harry, raising his own wand to chest height. As 
he did so, the five wands of Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny, and Luna 
rose on either side of him.'"

(OotP, p.690).

This is the type of children that Hogwarts produces. 14 and 15 year 
olds ready to die to fight evil.

Faced with evil, they will do what they can - until they can not.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]