Description: There is probably no mainstream philosopher of the past fifty years for whom the theme of education is as important as it is for Stanley Cavell. This is evident in the early orientation he takes from his reading of Wittgenstein, and to which he has returned repeatedly in his career; it is there in his engagement with film and in his readings of Shakespeare; there in his inheritance of Freud; it is foregrounded in his assessment of Emerson and Thoreau; and it is explicit in the subtitle of "pedagogical letters" that he gives to his substantial 2003 work, City of Words. Cavell writes of education in terms that others might think of as human psychology or as moral development or as the achieving of authenticity. But none of these expressions quite captures the economy of living and moral perfectionism that are his concerns. In significant respects he writes against the grain of philosophy, yet he distances himself from Continental traditions; at the same time the American cast of his thought is not to be understood as pragmatism. His is then a peculiarly individual voice, and in many respects a difficult one too. And here perhaps one finds the two clearest reasons for the way that he is avoided - in Education especially, but also in some other intellectual spheres in which his contribution is nevertheless revered: first, his work, so resistant to classification, is not to be assimilated into familiar categories; and second, his thought and expression are demanding. The purpose of my paper is to examine these reasons for avoidance, to consider Cavell's own avoidance of more explicit, more direct, or more accessible forms of engagement with educational theory and practice, and to suggest ways of realizing his importance for our subject. Methodology: This is a philosophical study, involving the critical analysis of texts by the author whose work is its central concern. It refers to secondary literature on Cavell that seeks to diagnose the resistance that is sometimes found to his work. It identifies problems in the philosophy of education as these are typically formulated and addressed, and seeks to reveal the nature of the methodological mismatch between these and the philosophy in question. Conclusions: The paper seeks to show the value of Cavell's work for Education, not only in terms of its substance but also for the methodological challenge that it demonstrates. In the light of other publications on Cavell and education, it reveals the ways in which Cavell's work can provide a release from the stalemates and sterility of certain aspects of contemporary philosophy of education (for example, concerning liberalism and commitarianism).