Abstract: This article explores relationships between Neuro-linguistic Programming - a growing school of thought and practice - and established learning theory, drawing a distinction between models, strategies and theories. Some evaluative comments are made about the coherence of Neuro-linguistic Programming as it currently stands, both in terms of its internal consistency, and in relation to established learning theories. In relation to its internal structure, questions are asked as to how far copying an expert's behaviour can really lead a learner to becoming an expert, and about the lack of attention within the theory given to the domain of application. Two other important areas are examined: the dissonance between the claim that Neuro-linguistic Programming caters to individuality in learning while also proposing a view that learning is best done experientially; and a specific aspect of the theory, named the 'logical levels', asking whether learners are really as predictable and as subject to cause/effect as this theory would suggest. Finally,the epistemological basis of Neurolinguistic Programming is questioned. It is argued that, though Neuro-linguistic Programming has begun to make an impact in education, it remains a set of strategies rather than a theory or a model, and these internal inconsistencies need to be addressed if it is to have a place among the dominant learning theories of our age.