近年來，平等論與適足論對於教育資源分配的論辯，是教育哲學討論的重要議題。平等論主張，資源必須平等分配，教育機會不應受到個人無法控制的外在因素所影響，教育的不平等若起因於這些元素，就是不正義。適足論則主張，資源的分配應以適足性為原則，只要每個人獲得最低門檻的資源，則在門檻之上的不平等，不能稱為不正義。本文試圖從兩派對於教育目的以及教育資源分配的論辯，比較兩種理論觀點的差異，以及各自遭遇的難題。本文認為，一個完整的教育正義觀，必須有效處理兩派所遭遇的難題，本文將提出一個得以解決兩派主張的規範性觀點。

Over the past decades, there has been ongoing philosophical debate between luck egalitarians and relational egalitarians. Recently, an equivalent debate has been taking place in the sphere of education. According to the educational equality approach, justice requires prospects for educational achievement to be dependent upon a child's ability and willingness to learn, and not on factors outside of her control. Nevertheless, proponents of what can be called adequacy approach have instead argued that the state is required to ensure all children have adequate education. Once this threshold is obtained, there is no injustice in the fact that some children have better education than others. This paper tries to address this debate. It will not only lay out at conceptual level the difference between equality and adequacy but also to show what these conceptual differences mean for educational policies.