Many countries have recently introduced reforms that aim to enhance education quality by implementing assessment tools to evaluate organizational, classroom, and personal practices (at school leader, teacher, and student levels). Standards and quality frameworks describe education processes and outputs with operationalized indicators, sometimes taking into account the conditions of educational practices. The evaluation process is aligned to these standards and standardized itself, particularly when used for accountability purposes.On the one hand, standardization, and in particular defining minimum standards, can be regarded as convenient, as it establishes a common framework that focuses on the basic skills and competencies considered important. Standardized approaches to assessment and evaluation practices allow for comparison of educational quality across regions, states, and countries. On the other hand, standardizing assessment and evaluation practices is also constraining because it disregards contextual factors, such as local, regional, and national educational conditions, and their effects on individuals, classrooms, and organizations. Contextual aspects are important for fairly judging quality. Moreover, for improvement purposes-in contrast with accountability purposes-the contextual aspects of education quality are even more important. This issue raises the following key questions: How much contextual differentiation is needed? What are standardization's implications for education assessment and evaluation processes? What are the consequences of standardization, and are there any unintended negative side effects?