It has been generally accepted that teaching does not meet the criteria of a profession, at least as exemplified by the more mature professions of medicine and law (Abbott, 1988; Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Etzioni, 1969; Howsam, Corrigan, Denemark, & Nash, 1976). Teaching is most often referred to as a semiprofession; Myers's (2008 [this issue]) definition of teaching as a service profession provides a different perspective. His conclusion is based on 13 criteria and the rationales demonstrating that teaching is not a profession, although it does have service components. The criteria generally identify static rather than dynamic indicators, and although interesting, neither provide direction for improving teaching, nor do they apply uniformly to all teachers. The real issue is not one of classification or taxonomic analysis or whether teachers are semiprofessionals or service professionals. Rather, the question is, should teachers be defined and treated as professionals and, if so, what directions for change are appropriate and potentially effective? This article presents the third response to Donald A. Myers's "The Teacher as a Service Professional." In this third response, the author contends that it may be instructive to think back a hundred years to the era of the Flexner (1910) report, which changed medicine to a true profession, in considering whether teaching is or should be a profession, a semiprofession, or a service profession.