Today's climate of anxious expectation and critical blame for failing schools have led to numerous calls for change. Nearly every educational organization has developed its own set of standards for teaching and learning. The Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards are a prime example of expectations being established for certification and licensure of new teachers. Two issues relative to using these standards (or those of the National Council of Teachers of English) are that the development and use of high standards alone cannot address the neglect of teacher preparation, and generic principles or standards are empty unless disciplined by moral purpose and sensitivity. Teaching as an occupation cannot claim professional status and recognition solely on the basis of scientific knowledge. Standards devoid of moral purpose will not attract teachers to the profession, make sure they are well-trained for the challenges they will face in the classroom, or induce them to stay in the profession. INTASC has informed the work in Indiana to the degree that various task forces are now preparing a new licensing system that is performance based. Because INTASC's focus is assessment practices and accountability, universities are being required to redesign their preparation programs according to these standards to endure teaching competence. But what can be expected of teachers? The improvement of schooling cannot occur without stronger teachers, and although standards help codify what is expected, they cannot do the work for the public. (Statistics about teaching/teachers are included.) (NKA)