Many quality schemes, including that of ODL QC, are based on standards.

Standards set a level of service or quality against which a provision can be judged.

If the standards are met, it also tells learners what minimum level of service (s)he can expect.

That level may be high, or low.    Standards indicate a minimum;   they only imply excellence if the level at which they are set is in itself high.

Sets of standards are also useful in that they indicate the type and range of issues in a provision where quality is important.    They "define the agenda" for quality, just as much as they "set the standard" for each item on the list.

To see what a set of standards looks like, try the ODL QC standards.    Similar sets are produced by DETC in the States, and by NADE in Norway.

Benchmark is sometimes used in place of standard.    Again, the word is relatively value-free:   it means, literally, a mark on the bench which defines a certain length.

So a benchmark implies numerical precision: "scripts will be returned within 3 days".    Standards may be equally precise, or they may phrased to indicate the possibility of subjective judgements: "scripts will be returned within an appropriate and/or specified period of time".

With the rise of e-Learning, the idea of standards has become more confused.    Educational standards, such as those from ODL QC and others, are supplemented by e-standards: SCORM and the like.

These are technological specifications that allow transfer of e-Learning materials from one online environment to another.    In their purist form, they have little to do with education.    And "standards" in an online environment can mean either, or a combination of the two.