Desert, justice, and organisational differentiation in schools: a conceptual typology for understanding arguments about special teaching groups

Drawing on desert theory, the article develops a conceptual typology designed to analyse the structure of arguments that appear in debates on organisational differentiation in schools. The typology consists of four ideal-typical categories: 1) knowledge-based arguments, 2) resource-based arguments, 3) identity-based arguments, and 4) desert-based arguments. These categories are intended to illuminate the different normative and empirical assumptions that underpin positions for and against organisational differentiation in schools, such as special teaching groups. The Swedish discussion on inclusion and segregated provision is used as an illustration to demonstrate how the framework can clarify the relationship between factual claims and value-laden judgements. A central argument of the article is that desert considerations appear largely irrelevant when educational decisions concern an individual pupil in isolation but gain significance once that pupil’s situation is compared to the interests of classmates. In such comparative contexts, weak retributivist reasoning may influence judgments about what different pupils are taken to deserve. The article concludes by problematising the appeal to moral desert in educational decision-making concerning children and by outlining how the conceptual framework can support transparent philosophical scrutiny of debates on organisational differentiation.