Huh? What’s there to be surreptitious about? The whole point is that magical parents are trusted to participate in their children’s magical development.
The students were not supposed to do magic over the summer, full stop. There’s no official exception there. The leniency could be rationalized as “magical parents can stop their children from casting spells if need be, so we don’t need to monitor them,” but it’s not “go ahead and do magic, magical parents are trusted to teach and guide their children’s magic.”
If the children are casting spells, then they are breaking the law. If the parent is teaching them without the child actually casting the spell, then there’s no need for an exemption.
This particular rule strikes me as pretty reasonable. It is assumed that magical parents can manage their children’s magic.
If you don’t consider that parents might surreptitiously teach their children spells, then sure, that makes sense.
Huh? What’s there to be surreptitious about? The whole point is that magical parents are trusted to participate in their children’s magical development.
The students were not supposed to do magic over the summer, full stop. There’s no official exception there. The leniency could be rationalized as “magical parents can stop their children from casting spells if need be, so we don’t need to monitor them,” but it’s not “go ahead and do magic, magical parents are trusted to teach and guide their children’s magic.”
If the children are casting spells, then they are breaking the law. If the parent is teaching them without the child actually casting the spell, then there’s no need for an exemption.