The discussion of standards in this article reveals a number of common features. First, they all focus on macro-level statements about teachers' professional work rather than attempting to detail what that work may be based on. Second, they do not make specifications about the nature and standard of relevant disciplinary knowledge (as would be the case for standards of language proficiency) although they all assume knowledge of the discipline. Third, they are all developed as descriptions of the accomplished teacher and can be used by teachers as a resource for their own professional learning as teachers of the relevant discipline. Fourth, they conceptualise teachers' professional practice in a number of broad areas which cover teachers' knowledge, practice, and attributes. In addition, the knowledge that teachers have and the practices in which they engage can be seen as complex. That is, there is no one feature of teachers' knowledge or practice which can be deemed to be of paramount importance for an accomplished teacher. Moreover, there is a range of variation in what constitutes good teaching, and good teachers may teach in widely different ways which are nonetheless equally good in context. This means that there can be no decontextualised idea of what constitutes "good practice" in language teaching. Instead, good language teaching relates to being able to achieve language teaching goals in a particular program, with a particular group of students, and in a particular social and cultural context. It is therefore important that standards for language teachers reflect the inherent variability of good teaching and allow for flexibility rather than attempting to impose a model of professional practice. (Contains 1 figure.)