Education is a fundamental concern of all countries. This relevance comes from the fact that it is a Fundamental Right, necessary for people to develop, grow and contribute to a fulfilling life. Despite the discrepancies about the foundations and goals that education should pursue in its most global sense, there is a consensus regarding the need for education, as well as the commitment to quality education.

This can be seen at the most current level, when the United Nations in 2015 established a framework of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), among which education is number four. To further elaborate on the education goal of 'Quality Education', several international bodies, including UNESCO, UNICEF, or the International Labour Organization, based in Switzerland, come together to develop the so-called "Incheon Declaration". A Framework for Action for 'Quality Education' is elaborated under the subtitle "Ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all" (2016). This serves as a reference for governments to define their education policies, following the general guidelines set out here.

This work is not intended to elaborate on education policy, but rather to highlight the importance of education for personal and social prosperity. Precisely, this paper will try to clarify the ‘good teacher’ concept and analyze some of the characteristics that might contribute to ‘quality education’, responding to the following objectives:

1. Analise the elements of a good teacher following David Carr’s contributions.
2. Suggest two moral virtues, humility and magnanimity, as characteristics of a good teacher.

In the recent years, the characteristics and requirements of ‘professionalism’ have been a matter of debate, questioned by researchers and academics such as Carr (1991, 2000, 2005, 2006, 2007; Cooke & Carr, 2014), Campbell (2000, 2008; Campbell et al., 2013), Arthur (2011, 2019; Peterson & Arthur, 2020; Revell & Arthur, 2007),  Kristjánsson (2015), Sockett (2012; Sockett & LePage, 2002), Sanger & Osguthorpe (2011, 2013), and many others, who are trying to define what is understood by ‘the good teacher’.

Teaching, for all the above-mentioned authors, is a moral profession, which requires being, as Carr stated (1991), “a certain kind of person”. This implies that the personal character of the teacher is manifested in his or her professional work.

The current educational aims, in contrast, are mainly instrumental. Competencies are considered as the ultimate goals and assessment standards. According to DeSeCo (2005, p. 4), “a competency is more than just knowledge and skills. It involves the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context”. This frame is intended to go beyond a simple provision of knowledge and skills, conforming the base of some European educational political frameworks. Nevertheless, the frequent use of competence as a set of dispositions which omit deliberation fail to resolve, according to Carr (2000), the deepest sense of education, the pursuit of the good to contribute, in an Aristotelian language, to a ‘eudaimonic life’.

Whereas ‘dispositional competence’ is focused on the efficacy of action, virtue seeks the realisation of the good at its epistemological levels, identified with the ‘capacity competence’ presented by Carr (2000). Many writers have challenged the competence scope on the grounds that these educational standards cannot encapsulate all the human abilities or qualities of the ‘good teacher’ (Arthur et al., 2016, p. 16). Therefore, in accordance with Carr (2006, 2007), without rejecting the contribution of competences and skills, it is a matter of revitalising virtue for being ‘a good teacher’. For that, the Aristotelian and neo-Aristotelian theory of virtue forms the theoretical framework that we intend to explore in depth here (2010).

‘Quality education’, one of the SGD objectives (2015), was developed in the ‘Incheon Declaration’ enumerating the principal education aims for 2030 Agenda (2016). Some of the pursued goals and strategies manifested in the Declaration are specifically directed to the figure of the teacher. That said, all the presented suggestions are broad and barely focus on the implication of what a ‘good teacher’ means. In response to that, in this paper we aim to review all the information which is exclusively directed to educators. A deep analysis of the ‘Incheon Declaration’ and a review of the references to the teacher’s role is the first part of the approach. The word ‘teacher’ appears 68 times along the document. From this research, an outline of the teachers’ objectives is developed. A summary of the main goals that are stated along the document is then elaborated to conform the paper structure. In short, the main objectives, which coincide to be the most repeated, configure the paper index. In relation to the content methodology, an epistemological approach is developed in response to the intuitive knowledge stems regarding teaching as a moral profession. From a philosophical perspective, following the Aristotelian current, this professional endeavor is seen as an essential labor that contributes to the deepest aim of education, ‘human flourishing’. The theory of virtue is presented as a means towards human growth and the teacher’s duty has some personal and professional implications regarding virtue. An interpretative-hermeneutical methodology is to be followed, being David Carr (1991, 2000, 2005, 2006, 2007) the principal subject-matter-expert referenced in the paper. The pieces of work have been selected – “Character in teaching”, “Professionalism and Ethics in Teaching” or “Personal and interpersonal relationships in education and teaching: A virtue ethical perspective” – due to its specific concern on the teaching profession and virtue, in reaction to a skill-based professional reductionism. The point of departure is the belief that teachers ought to be moral exemplars, with personal virtues, to develop their teaching practice in what we understand as ‘good teacher’. In order to confirm this belief, a qualitative expert-based approach is to be followed. An analysis of the contributions that David Carr has provided to the concept of ‘good teacher’ will be related to the teacher implications described in the ‘Incheon Declaration’ (2016), in response to the objective four, ‘quality education’, reflected in the 2030 Agenda (United Nations, 2015).

The main goal of the current work is to examine the ‘good teacher’ implications, in relation to the outlined aims in the Incheon Declaration. From this broad framework, an analysis of David Carr’s contributions to the teaching profession will be described. The first thing that this paper might have shown is the important role that the teachers entail. Through education, the overall society can be benefited. This finding will certainly be presented all along the discourse, from an analysis of the 2030 Agenda aims which are specifically directed to teachers (2016, p. 54): “be empowered, adequately recruited and remunerated, motivated, professionally qualified, and supported”. The findings of the thesis may attribute to the contribution of David Carr to the moral implication of the teaching profession, considering teachers moral educators and moral exemplars. The ‘theory of virtue’, from an Aristotelian perspective, will suggest a more profound contribution to education, considering skills and competences in service of virtue display and towards the realization of the good. All the analysis might possibly indicate that ‘quality education’ could be achieved if the person of the teacher was considered. From an epistemological perspective, phronesis and moral virtues are to be presented as fundamental for deliberation and action in moral situations. Despite their necessity, codes of conduct will not give response to all coming situations. One last important conclusion of this work might be the assumption that unless governments do not consider the epistemological understanding of teaching, as a profession of moral significance where virtue entails an important responsibility, ‘quality education’ will not be attained.

Aristóteles, Rowe, C. J., & Broadie, S. (2002). Nicomachean ethics. Oxford University Press. Arthur, J. (2011). Personal character and tomorrow’s citizens: Student expectations of their teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.07.001 Arthur, J. (2019). The Formation of Character in Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429262463 Arthur, J., Kristjánsson, K., Harrison, T., Sanderse, W., & Wright, D. (2016). Teaching Character and Virtue in Schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315695013 Campbell, E. (2000). Professional Ethics in Teaching: Towards the development of a code of practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640050075198 Campbell, E. (2008). The Ethics of Teaching as a Moral Profession. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(4), 357–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2008.00414.x Campbell, E., Bondi, L., Carr, D., Clark, C., & Clegg, C. (2013). The Virtuous, Wise, And Knowledgeable Teacher: Living the Good Life As A Professional Practitioner. Carr, D. (1991). Educating the Virtues: An essay on th philosophical psychology of moral development and education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203138694 Carr, D. (2000). Professionalism and ethics in teaching. Routledge. Carr, D. (2005). Personal and interpersonal relationships in education and teaching: A virtue ethical perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00294.x Carr, D. (2006). Professional and personal values and virtues in education and teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 32(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980600645354 Carr, D. (2007). Character in teaching. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00386.x Cooke, S., & Carr, D. (2014). Virtue, Practical Wisdom and Character in Teaching. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2014.929632 Kristjansson, K. (2015). Educating the educators Teachers and Aristotelian character education. In Aristotelian Character Education (Vol. 138, pp. 129–143). Kristjánsson, K. (2015). Aristotelian Character Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315752747 Peterson, A., & Arthur, J. (2020). Ethics and the Good Teacher: Character in the Professional Domain. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429320699 Sanger, M. N., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2013). Modeling as moral education: Documenting, analyzing, and addressing a central belief of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2012.08.002 Sockett, H. (2012). Knowledge and Virtue in Teaching and Learning: The Primacy of Dispositions. In Knowledge and Virtue in Teaching and Learning: The Primacy of Dispositions. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203155509 UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. UNESCO Biblioteca Digital. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656 United Nations. (2015). THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/goals