Educational disparities are one of the most essential issues surrounding education and equity. Previous research includes many empirical studies which have been conducted to eliminate educational disparities. However, the normative question "Why do educational disparities matter?" has not been carefully examined in empirical studies on educational disparities. This question can be answered based on the value of fairness. But what is fairness? Is it enough if a fair educational system is realized? Based on the above concerns, this paper examines the value of fairness, which is a normative assumption of studies on educational disparities. The paper confirms that the value of fairness behind the argument "educational disparities should be corrected" can be clarified and justified by luck egalitarianism, and clarifies the problems associated with pursuing fairness by examining Elizabeth Anderson's critique of luck egalitarianism. Specifically, the paper focuses on the harshness objection and the humiliation objection. It shows that, even if fairness in education is achieved, it may not result in an ideal education for all, because it may leave some children in a harsh situation and humiliate them in the process of providing compensation through redistribution. The paper then discusses three values that should be added to fairness: fresh start, sufficiency, and respect. After that, it discusses why these values are important and what issues should be considered in future empirical research on educational disparities. The paper also presents suggestions toward examining the problems of meritocracy.