Last week, Mossbourne schools came under renewed scrutiny following reports of “systemic” and “lasting” emotional harm to children spanning two decades (The Guardian, 2024). Nearly 140 parents, students, and teachers have spoken out, detailing experiences of anxiety, depression, and long-term consequences attributed to the school’s strict disciplinary practices.

For some, the solution seems simple: stricter Ofsted regulations to ensure fairness in schools. But is Ofsted’s lack of regulation truly driving these harmful practices? Or are these actions ideological choices, masked as structural necessities? At Class 13, we see this as a pivotal moment to challenge what structure in education is meant to achieve. 

Ideological Choices: Who’s Responsible?

When schools face criticism, they often point to external pressures, particularly from Ofsted, as the reason for punitive practices. However, we must ask: are these measures genuinely mandated, or are schools interpreting guidance to align with entrenched ideologies? With the pursuit of “outstanding” ratings, Ofsted scrutiny may contribute. But it is schools themselves that embed these practices.

The reality is, many damaging practices are ideological choices. We’ve all been in a classroom when a child has been called out in front of their classmates by teachers trained in “healthy fear”, witnessed detentions for using a phone while in uniform, and disciplined for congregating in groups of more than six during break. Normalised in school, outside of education these practices would be considered public humiliation, extreme discipline, and rigid policies. 

The choice to use these practices rests on the belief that structure and discipline are inherently “good,” creating a false binary: structure or chaos. Just this week, a headteacher challenged us, asserting, “Young people do need to be told and have boundaries.” At Class 13, we don’t oppose boundaries—we believe boundaries must make sense. The goal shouldn’t be control, but fostering autonomy and growth, inviting questions and reflection rather than dictation. We engage young people in “critical dialogue” because we believe this constitutes real learning. 

The Double Edge of “Structure Liberates”

“Structure liberates children…” was the catchphrase of Michael Wilshaw, the first head of Mossbourne Academy, often accompanied by the phrase “…especially those from deprived backgrounds.” But are education systems truly liberating students, or are they perpetuating the very inequities they claim to dismantle? 

Wilshaw’s statement  are steeped in deficit ideology, justifying strict discipline by painting children as a problem to be fixed and marginalised students as requiring extraordinary control to succeed. The parallels to historical narratives of “civilising” marginalised communities are difficult to ignore, framing certain students as needing stricter control echoes colonial ideas designed to pathologise and oppress. 

In schools today, this translates into racialised patterns of discipline, where students of colour are disproportionately punished and excluded—all in the name of maintaining order. As Christy Kulz (2014) highlights, this ethos functions as a tool of control, especially for marginalised young people. The very structure that promises liberation frequently becomes a cage, enforcing compliance at the expense of individuality, creativity, and well-being.

And deficit ideology is not limited to Wilshaw the oppressor. Internalised oppression often leads families to embrace punitive structures, believing in harsh boundaries, strict discipline,  military schools or “back home” for harsher boundaries—will save them. These beliefs frame young people as inherently problematic rather than as individuals navigating an inequitable system. And, as Frantz Fanon observed, “The oppressed will always believe the worst about themselves.” 

Rethinking Discipline: From Punishment to Growth

At Class 13, we believe discipline should be rooted in equity, not control. Punitive approaches harm students’ mental health and reinforce deficit ideologies, framing young people as problems to be fixed rather than individuals navigating inequitable systems. Instead of asking, “How do we make students conform to our structures?” we should ask, “How do we create structures that truly serve everyone?”

Our four principles of equity —affirmation, critical thinking, community, and democracy—offer a framework for rethinking discipline:

• Affirmation: Discipline should address behaviours without diminishing humanity. We need to recognise the inherent value of every person, moving beyond simplistic phrases like “all behaviour is communication” and reflecting on your own role in shaping behaviour.
• Critical Thinking: Discipline should foster growth, not compliance, encouraging young people to reflect on their actions and the systems around them. We need to move past formulaic restorative justice approaches, reflective of the criminal justice system,   and create space for meaningful dialogue and self-reflection.
• Community: Discipline is a collective effort. True community is about shared responsibility, not top-down enforcement. We need to build environments that involve students, educators, and families in crafting solutions. 
• Democracy: Discipline that is truly relational. We must ensure students, teachers, and parents have a genuine say in the rules and practices that govern their learning environment. 

For an example of these principles in action, you can read the Principles in Practice where our founder apologised for his role in escalating a student conflict, demonstrating the power of accountability. A truly equitable approach to discipline involves everyone—not just those in leadership—and ensures that rules reflect relational and reflective practices

Moving Forward: Naming the Problem, Changing the System

Interestingly, schools like Mossbourne and Michaela Community School demonstrate boldness in standing firm in their beliefs. While we disagree with their punitive methods, there’s a lesson here: real change requires courage. If we want to create equitable systems, we must be willing to face criticism and take risks.

The first step toward change is naming the problem. Too often, schools lack a cohesive framework for their actions, defaulting to disconnected policies that maintain the status quo. Educators and leaders often feel trapped by external expectations, leading to survival-focused decisions that prioritise immediate results over systemic change.

Change doesn’t happen without discomfort. Schools must move beyond fear of “getting told off” by Ofsted or the media. Boldness, guided by values of equity, is the first step toward creating systems that uplift rather than oppress.

A Call to Action: Building Structures That Truly Liberate

The question isn’t whether schools need structure—they do. The question is, what kind of structure? Will it be one that prioritises compliance at all costs, or one that liberates students to thrive in ways that honour their individuality and humanity?

At Class 13, we’re committed to reimagining education. We invite you to join us:

• Reflect on the principles driving your practices. Are they equitable?
• Commit to building structures that challenge inequities rather than perpetuate them.

The future of education lies in bold, values-driven change. Let’s move beyond punitive traditions and build a system where structure doesn’t control—it liberates.