Thus far we have argued that teaching may be regarded as a professional enterprise, along with such traditional professions as medicine and law, to the extent that it is implicated in the promotion of ethically contestable and morally problematic goals of human flourishing. It is because this is so that it seems misguided to try to account for professional educational preparation in the technically reductive terms of competence models. It is not just, as often argued by contemporary ‘particularists’ about the art of teaching, that teaching is a highly context-relative or situationspecific activity which resists articulation in terms of some simple set of mechanical rules, but that – since what is to count as an educational method is variously determined by different conceptions of the ends or purposes of education – it is also difficult to talk of fundamental all-purpose pedagogical strategies in quite the way required by any pure competence conception of professional training. Hence, we saw in Part IV that although there is broad professional agreement that it is the aim of teaching to secure certain human developmental ends of socialisation, preparation for life and work and rational emancipation, there is apt to be some disagreement concerning the several natures and respective weightings of these goals in the context of schooling. In the last chapter, moreover, we observed that despite broad professional agreement that teaching has moral educational implications, there is also much scope for diverse interpretations of these implications, and about where any line, if any, ought to be drawn between the private and public aspects of a teacher’s life.