That's right.

That's why I find it reductive and a bit too easy when people accuse Rowling of promoting the rejection of parental and authority figures wholesale. She rather promotes to kids freedom of thought an the right to question authority rather than blind obedience to everything. "Always, you need to think, then think over again". But her "rebels" and free thinkers don't get off so easy, especially Harry - and Sirius who, while sympathetic, was also depicted as an immature man who's refused to grow up past his teenage years and who enables teenagers in turn to justify taking harsh, badly thought-out and costly actions. Part of her message is that freedom of choice comes with high responsabilities and a necessity to accept to mature, especially when dangers are involved. She rewarded Harry for stepping up and taking the job of teacher responsibly when adults gave up on their duties, but in the same book she made him pay very dearly at the end for rebelling wholesale against authority without questionning his reasons anymore, letting emotions get the better of him and rejecting for once sound advice.

Harry's harsher and stupider actions come to balance out all those instances in the books where Rowling appeared to promote rebellion and disobedience without nuances. She was even a bit devious at it, because she let the kids get away with it for a while, let adults absorb most of the consequences for them, and even let the kids make an habit of not listening before the pendulum suddenly swung back and smacked them right where it hurt the most (death of Sirius and so on).

Where Rowling "sinned" a bit and lacked balance is in her portrayal of the moral/social right (and she threw in the rich an powerful without much distinction, for good measure). Her portrayal of conservative people is on the whole black, black and black. She depicted virtually all of them as intolerant (and that's mild... by the end "intolerant" becomes more and more racist and for some genocidal), stupid when not evil themselves or the enablers and helpers of all evil. For a few, the only barely redeeming quality was that they loved their children too. On the other hand, the poor and liberal-minded (and her more out-there bunch of eccentrics verging on a little outdated hippy values) were depicted in general very positively - a bit on the naive side or foolish at times, but their values and human qualities always redeemed their flaws in the end. It's rather telling that Harry Potter was criticized or looked at with much suspicion in the more conservative milieus (large chunks of the US, the churches worlwide etc.), while the socially liberal nations/groups/people often wondered what was so terrible and wrong about those books.

It's not black-and-white. For people who agree with her values, JKR's books have quite a bit of food for thought for children while being damn good stories and an excellent incentive to read. In all honesty, this should come with some discussion with the kids afterward to address a few of the topics she painted a little too much in black and white. For people who don't agree with her values, their reservations are quite understandable, especially when by the end of the series, the more conservative are quiote justified to think their values have been largely ridiculed and more than once associated with evil (though as usual the extremists on both sides went over the top, like with those moronic accusations that Rowling "promoted" witchcraft among kids or taught "atheism" and anti-Christian values... the deeply christian values and symbolism in her final book made them look more than a little foolish in retrospect.)