In recent Swedish discussion on the democratic potential of the school system, the idea of 'deliberative communication' has been brought into focus. Deliberative communication is understood in this context as communication in which different opinions and values can be brought face to face, with 'an endeavour to ensure that each individual takes a stand by listening, deliberating, seeking arguments and evaluating, while at the same time there is a collective effort to find values and norms that everyone can agree upon'. Deliberative communication' stands for communication and conversation in which different opinions and values can be set against each other. The idea of deliberative communication implies endeavours to develop intersubjective talents as listening, deliberating, seeking arguments and valuing, coupled to a collective and cooperative endeavour to find values and norms which everyone can accept, at the same time as pluralism is acknowledged. In my paper I will combine ideas from Habermas and other philosophers of the 'second modernity', social scientists and educators to give a philosophical relief to the idea of deliberative communication. I will also relate the idea to a classic pragmatic tradition (Mead, Dewey). Lastly I will ask if it is possible to evaluate which discussions are deliberative and which are not in the classroom by sketching five characteristics of deliberative communication: a. different views are confronted with one another and arguments for these different views are given time and space and are articulated and presented (cf. Habermas 1989, 1996, Gutmann & Thompson 1996); b. there is tolerance and respect for the concrete other and participants learn to listen to the other person's argument (Habermas 1989, 1996, Benhabib 1992); c. elements of collective will formation are present, i.e. an endeavour to reach consensus or at least temporary agreements and/or to draw attention to differences (Habermas 1987a 1996, Gutmann & Thompson 1996); d. authorities/traditional views (represented, for example, by parents and tradition) can be questioned and there are opportunities to challenge one's own tradition (Gutmann 1987, Nussbaum 1996); e. there is scope for students to communicate and deliberate without teacher control, i.e. for argumentative discussions between students with the aim of solving problems or shedding light on them from different points of view.