Actually, it does make sense. The data is very clear - promotion with additional academic support produces better outcomes than retention, which is too often just subjecting a child to "more of the same" methods and lessons that didn't work the first time around. Retention is popular because it is cheaper - just have the kid doe the grade over rather than spending resources on tutoring, evaluations, or other interventions - but the data on it is clear. It produces short-term gains of a year or two, then long-term failures including higher dropout rates, lower probability of college attendance, and increased risk of a number of social problems (drug use, pregnancy, etc).
The reason I think the tests are the problem (not just PARCC) is the high failure rates among even high achieving kids, and among educated professional adults who have taken practice versions. The fact is that they're testing content areas that aren't required for graduation, for successful adult life, or for many college degrees. I would like to see a test system aligned not to what sounds good on paper or a campaign speech but to the skills actually needed/used in adulthood. We shouldn't be testing all kids - regardless of native ability, special needs, or individual goals - at the level one would expect of college-bound students, and we shouldn't be constructing and imposing a test that is tailored to a particular set of competencies at the expense of others that are just as valuable.
What I see in the whole testing movement is an assumption by our upper-middle class leaders that all students should naturally be able to reach the levels of achievement the advantaged students they are personally familiar with exhibit as a matter of course, and that it is very important that all do so because college should be everyone's goal. I don't think either assumption is valid. There is no benefit to denying a kid who wants to go to trade school the diploma he'll need to get there because he can't effectively compare the themes of two obscure pieces of writing, nor to giving a high-achieving student with an interest in the arts a test that won't allow him to graduate unless he masters chemistry and trig (both of which are included on our state's exit exam, and neither of which I've ever needed as an adult). And at the younger grades, there is plenty of evidence that holding kids back because they need help getting caught up to grade level is the least effective way to serve those students. But when you make funding, teacher evaluations, and other school-wide matters contingent upon student test scores that is exactly what happens.
. 
