This is the author's response to Barbara and Derek Ball's comments to their three papers. Barbara and Derek believe that the "school run" infantilises children. The author disagrees. The school run does not infantilise children, but reflects officially sanctioned untruths and a systemic avoidance of issues of equity. The school run derives from fear and makes children victims. With regard to mathematics, the author disagrees with Barbara and Derek as to the means by which autonomy is achieved. Unlike Barbara and Derek, he thinks autonomy derives from positive conformity. He argues that the mathematical needs of children demand conformity to a coherent curricular and pedagogical tradition, rather than the encouragement of many. While many of Barbara and Derek's comments are focused on critiquing their proposal for greater regulation, the author thinks the real area of debate concerns the extent to which regulation implies a framework or a prescription. He is suggesting that intelligently-planned regulation would offer teachers affordances rather than constraints.