Well, that's my point expressed in different examples. Standardized testing makes the system easier to manage from the top, and makes the result consistent. Firing "bad teachers" is a complex problem - some teachers can get fired because they suck at educating, but others just because the principal doesn't like them, etc. With standardized rules and procedures, you try to sidestep the whole issue, at the cost of the rules becoming what you optimize for, instead of actual education (which is hard to measure).

> I think a lot of the desire for standardized testing would dissolve if principals could just make personnel decisions like normal managers.

That could maybe affect the desire coming from the bottom, but not the one from the top - up there, the school's output is an input to further processes. Funding decisions are made easier thanks to standardized tests. University recruitment is made easier thanks to standardized tests. Etc.

> I think people have been trusting public schools a lot. That generally worked out great for people in affluent suburban districts. And it worked out horribly for people in poor, remote, and urban districts.

That's the think I'm talking about. I believe it's like this (with Q standing for Quality):

  Q(affluent_free) + Q(poor_free) > Q(affluent_standardized) + Q(poor_standardized)
  Q(affluent_standardized) < Q(affluent_free)
  Q(poor_standardized) > Q(poor_free)

E.g. education without standardized tests may be better for society in total in terms of quality, but then it totally sucks to be poor. Standardized educaion gives mediocre results for everyone.