I think there are only a few likely interpretations of this statement:
There should be a new set of education standards for the 21st century; the ones from the 1990s must go. (Dede)
- The speaker supported the standards of the 1990's and was right then and is right now. Therefore, education standards are so transient to be a waste of time, unless you think the pace of technological and social change is slowing.
- The speaker was wrong to support the standards in the 1990's, but now he does not and he is right not to. This doesn't say much for the speaker's authority, since he was wrong the last time.
- The speaker opposed the standards of the 1990's and was right, but nobody listened to him; but you should listen to him now. This suggests that arguments about how the world have changed are just a pretense for having a fresh crack at convincing you of what he believed all along.
I suppose there are other possibilities which get increasingly baroque and unlikely, like opposing the standards of the 1990's for one correct reason and opposing them now for an entirely different correct reason.