To understand the re-legitimisation of special education by inclusion, it is necessary to further investigate what functions special education has for everyday practices in self-proclaimed inclusive schools. Even though it might seem contradictory to ask for functions of special education in inclusive schools, empirically we can see that teachers in Germany simultaneously understand their school as being inclusive and yet draw from key concepts of special education to describe some of their pupils as different or to argue for the need of pedagogical differentiations (Merl 2021). The presentation analyses the functions that special education and especially different categories of special educational needs have theoretically and empirically, based on an ethnography in inclusive schools (Merl 2019): Thus, based on existing studies, the presentation first examines the basal functions of pathologization for the school system and for the existence of special education itself (Tenorth 2006; Bühler 2017). One central function in this regard appears to be the authorisation of pedagogical differentiations. To put it briefly: (Naturalised) Differences legitimise differentiation. I will therefore present the concept of authorisation and its relation to educational norms (Jergus & Thomspon 2017). The concept of authorisation provides a sensitising concept for the following reconstructive analysis of an observed pathologization, which took place in class in the form of the public outing of a pupil as being autistic. The analysis leads to a final discussion of equality and equal treatment as an educational norm in schools, which is an underlying condition for the authorising function of pathologisations in inclusive schools. A more precise understanding of the authorising functions which pathologies and their underlying norms of equal treatment have in inclusive school contexts, will allow for a concluding discussion of the following questions: 1.) How may these functions be substituted without having to refer to discriminatory categories? 2.) How may the underlying norm be challenged and changed? Both Questions could be a means of exploring the possibilities of alternative special education and its emergence.

Bühler, P. (2017). „Diagnostik“ und „praktische Behandlung“. Die Entstehung der therapeutischen Funktion der Schule. In R. Reichenbach & P. Bühler (Eds.), Fragmente zu einer pädagogischen Theorie der Schule (1st ed., pp. 176–195). Beltz Juventa. Jergus, K., & Thompson, C. (Eds.). (2017). Autorisierungen des pädagogischen Selbst: Studien zu Adressierungen der Bildungskindheit. Springer VS. Merl, T. (2019). un/genügend fähig: Zur Herstellung von Differenz im Unterricht inklusiver Schulklassen. Klinkhardt. Merl, T. (2021). In/sufficiently able: How teachers differentiate between pupils in inclusive classrooms. Ethnography and Education, 16(2), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2021.1871853 Tenorth, H.-E. (2006). Bildsamkeit und Behinderung – Anspruch, Wirksamkeit und Selbstdestruktion einer Idee. In L. Raphael & H.-E. Tenorth (Eds.), Ideen als gesellschaftliche Gestaltungskraft im Europa der Neuzeit (pp. 497–520). Oldenbourg. https://doi.org/10.1524/9783486596342.497