Education systems throughout the world have applied a range of mechanisms designed to effect educational reforms. At no time has this endeavour been more pressing than the present, with the global pressures of competition, political instability, and social and economic insecurity. Rapidly changing workplace demands brought about by technological advances place ever increasing demands on educators to prepare youth with skills and capacities to traverse future unknown territory. 

Standards provide one such mechanism designed to generate and ensure improvement, not only in educational outcomes and the processes and practices of those charged with effecting these outcomes - teachers and school leader, but also in the quality of preparation programs offered by tertiary institutions.  The argument for standards-based reform is illustrated by three assumptions: first, that student performance improves when the outcomes of learning are made explicit; second, teachers' performance improves when practices of teaching are made explicit; and third; school performance improves when the practices of leaders are made explicit. In Australia, for instance, standards were seen to be the mechanism, not only to improve teaching and learning of Science, but also to ‘revitalise the teaching profession’ (Ingvarson & Semple, 2006). More recently, standards for digital technologies are described as ‘an evolution in education’ with a promise to empower ‘learning and the teaching profession’ (Smith, 2017).

Which of these assumptions are realistic? Which of the 'promises' can be guaranteed, theoretically and in practice? 

This paper provides an overview of the author's reflections on 25 years of research, teaching and practice with Standards, highlighting strengths and ongoing challenges for designers, practitioners and policy makers. Particularly in relation to standards for school leaders and professional standards for teachers, three questions are posed:

1. what counts as evidence of meeting the Standards?

2. how much evidence is enough to demonstrate that the Standards have been met? and

3. is the successful application of Standards a matter of Art? Science? or wishful thinking?

Reviews of the standards movement show it was in its infancy in the 1990s and its influence continue to be experienced for the next quarter of a century. 

However, there appears to remain a mis-use of the commonly understood term 'standard'. What standard is implied by Standards: a minimum requirement or an aspirational level of performance?; a local, national or international benchmark? The ‘standard’ as a level of performance has a different meaning from the concept of Standards, and yet they are used interchangeably in practice. Is 'meeting 'the standard' the sum of performing at some identified level on each of the Standards, or elements of the list of behaviours? 

An alternative approach is proposed, based on different assumptions. For example, Standards are lists of aspects or elements of the job, making explicit what the work entails. Although theoretically expandable, the list of descriptors is also reductionist and ignores complexity, context, and the integrative holistic nature of the work of the professional. Furthermore, Standards present lists of undifferentiated elements, taking no account of relevance, importance or impact. More controversially, Standards as lists are amenable to political influence and interference. Developing Standards as job descriptions is a relatively simple matter, compared with the work of applying Standards to assess performance. There is confusion here: the Standards are not the instrument itself but they can be used to develop an instrument to assess performance. Ideally, such instruments address five criteria: they measure what matters, rather than every element of the Standards; they take account of context; they make explicit what variation looks like; they explicate what is needed to improve performance; and significantly, they indicate how much evidence is needed to meet each element of the Standards. Educational bureaucracies have a penchant for the Standards-based reform agenda. There is an attraction in condensing professional practice into manageable lists of presumably discrete, measurable, quantifiable and demonstrable behaviours. There is an even greater propensity to treated performance as a binary, with little appreciation of the extent of variation in performance that is commonly observed. The existence of Standards provide a sense of certainty in contexts of rapid change and increasing complexity. My 25 years of practice, research and teaching indicates that there is no shortage of skill or capacity, or desire, to develop standards (Art) or to analyse data (Science). It is less clear that we have mastered the Art and Science of applying standards to make valid and reliable judgements about performance. In the field of education, robust applications of Standards continue to rely, in my view, on wishful thinking for their success.

An alternative approach is proposed, based on different assumptions. For example, Standards are lists of aspects or elements of the job, making explicit what the work entails. Although theoretically expandable, the list of descriptors is also reductionist and ignores complexity, context, and the integrative holistic nature of the work of the professional. Standards as lists of undifferentiated elements, take no account of relevance, importance or impact. More controversially, Standards as lists are susceptible to political influence and interference. Developing Standards as job descriptions is simple, compared with the work of applying Standards to assess performance. There is confusion here: the Standards are not the instrument itself but can be used to develop an instrument to assess performance. Ideally, such instruments address five criteria: they measure what matters, rather than every element of the Standards; they take account of context; they make explicit what variation looks like; they explicate what is needed to improve performance; and significantly, they indicate how much evidence is needed to meet the Standards. Educational bureaucracies have a penchant for the Standards-based reform agenda where professional practice is condensed into lists of presumably discrete, measurable, quantifiable and demonstrable behaviours. There is an even greater propensity to treated performance as binary, with little appreciation of the extent of variation in performance commonly observed. The existence of Standards provide certainty in contexts of rapid change and increasing complexity. My 25 years of practice, research and teaching indicates that there is no shortage of skill, or desire, to develop standards (Art) or to analyse data (Science). It is less clear that we have mastered the Art and Science of applying standards to make valid and reliable judgements about performance. In the field of education, robust applications of Standards continue to rely, in my view, on wishful thinking for their success.

Louden, W. (1999). Standards for standards: The development of Australian professional standards for teaching, Australian Journal of Education. Louden, W. & Wildy, H. (1999). ‘Circumstance and proper timing’: Context and the construction of a standards framework for school principals’ performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 399-422. Louden, W. & Wildy, H. (1999). Short shrift to long lists: An alternative approach to the development of performance standards for school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(2), 99-120. Ingvarson, L. & Semple, A. (2006). How Can Professional Standards Improve the Quality of Teaching and Learning Science? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research, https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2006/3 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium [ISLLC]. (1996). Standards for school leaders. Draft model standards. Washington DC: Council of Chief State School Officers Masters, G. (1998). A developmental paradigm for standards and assessment. Paper presented at the international conference on Professional Standards and the Status of teaching, Fremantle, Western Australia, 24-26 February 1998. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (1989). Towards high and rigorous standards for teaching practice. Detroit, MI: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Smith, R. (2017). ISTE Releases New Standards for Educators to Maximize Learning for All Students Using Technology. Paper presented at ISTE’s 2017 Conference & Expo, San Antonio, USA. Wildy, H. (2004). Using performance standards in the selection of district directors. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2(2), 119-124. Wildy, H., Louden, W., Dempster, N. & Freakley, M. (2001). The moral dimension of school principals’ work: Standards, cases and social capital. Unicorn online, (www.austcolled.com.au). Wildy, H., Pepper, C. & Luo, G. (2011). Applying standards for leaders to the selection of secondary school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 276 – 291.