Description: This paper is concerned with philosophy of education focusing on constructivism and education. The purpose of the paper is to discuss why constructivism cannot deal with the essential problems of education. It is argued that constructivism as a theory of construction of knowledge cannot grasp the normativity of education.The paper is based on the works of Ernst von Glasersfeld, Clemens Diesbergen, Ludwig Pongratz, Reich, K and others Methodology: The paper is a theoretical study Abstract Every description is the observer's construction; in this sense we are all constructivists when we make descriptions, but from which position are we observing when we observe education? No matter how we answer this question the observer's position is of fundamental importance. The transformation of the science of education is a struggle between different positions of observation. Positions of observation include as well as exclude and in this way they determine the discourse of education. The specific discourse at one and the same time includes and excludes the themes that constitute the discourse and the arguments that are accepted as valid or invalid. The discourse also determines the positions of speech. It is a force that calls to order through inclusion and exclusion and doing so it also produces dissidence. The definition of the inclusive/exclusive is not substantial by nature on the contrary, it is relative. Whether something is included in a discourse or not is not a substantial quality of a given phenomenon but the relation that designates the inclusive and the exclusive. It is by virtue of the inclusive that the exclusive can be sustained and vice versa. Included in the educational discourse are theoretical positions that do not regard themselves as educational: for instance, systems theory and constructivism. In a way this is not remarkable as the science of education must involve theories and therefore also concepts and methods from other sciences in order to be able to deal with the complexity of educational problems. However, the interdisciplinary character of the science of education is not simply constituted by importing elements from other sciences, but by integrating those elements into an educational complex of problems, and indissolubly connected with that into an educational perspective. The educational relevance of the elements does not exist beforehand, but has to be brought about. An educational perspective is a precondition being able to thematize something as educational. Consequently it may seem odd that constructivism excludes this perspective and eliminates traditional educational categories following from it has been able to draw much attention in educational discourse. This paper will argue that constructivism cannot deal with the essential educational problems. As a theory of how knowledge is constructed constructivism distances itself from normativity and by doing so it is unable to orient the subject in its changing process from what it is to what it is going to become. However, education as a cultural phenomenon cannot escape normativity because human beings are living in a culture they bring about themselves. Education is a fact in every society. A human being only becomes a human being through an educational process in which it is both subject and object. Education changes with history on the basis of societal materiality, but without ideals. This is a basic condition of educational theory as normative. The constructivist concept of viability provides no ideas that can orient the educational process. Viability is only a matter of function. By focusing on the individual's construction of meaning, constructivism excludes the political and social context in which we are living. It is without any societal orientation. The explanation is that the individual's construction is regarded as a subjective construction that cannot bind people to each other. According to constructivism ethical reflections cannot be related to anything. This is very problematic, as no education takes place in a social vacuum. Constructivism pays tribute to individual and idiosyncratic orientations and it is therefore hard to see how it can contribute to a process aiming at the education of the democratic human being with responsibility to others as a fundamental condition. Conclusions: It is argued that the presence of constructivism within the educational discourse does not in itself guarantee an educational relevance. Thematizing a phenomenon as educational presupposes an educational perspective, which constructivism does not have.