Since we don't like ranking and sorting, that means all tests are bad.
Problem is, tests do other things. The "ranking and sorting" argument overlooks this. You teach your 10th grade chemistry classes about hydrogen by solving the Schroedinger equation for them over the course of 2-3 class periods and you can assume they got it. But if you test them, you can learn not only a "ranking and sorting" of the students but also whether or not they got it at all. Or you could, if you taught something appropriate instead of wildly inappropriate, find the kids who did learn.
If you're an administrator, you can use a common test to find the teacher that didn't teach what was required and the one who did. This has to be done intelligently--yeah, I know, "intelligent administrator" can be an oxymoron, but so can "responsible teacher", so there! By "intelligently" I mean looking at class time, teacher absences, things that interfere with classes, and whether the teacher focused on getting 90% of kids to master 80% of the content or getting 50% of kids to master 90% of content. Ultimately that should be a joint decision or district/school policy.
Common Core has problems. I think the test regime that the US is moving to reflects parental denial and paranoia more than it does finding out whether our kids have the minimum skills necessary to be at least on the low side of average. Parents see their kids not prospering as they think they've been promised and need a scapegoat. Obviously the parents aren't at fault; the kids can't ever be; it's not something larger than them, we'd need to personalize that and anthromorphize the economy into something that doesn't like us. After you've excused all the bad thinking and fallacies permitted to previous cohorts of poor students, that leaves teachers and curriculum.
= new reply since forum marked as read