Claiming that a student is capable of something is must be described in detail and this achievement cannot be simply generalized. Instructions indeed are not normal. A set of knowledge and expertise is forced onto a person in a determined manner. But because of the same thing that makes education meaningful.
The claim usually expressed by numbers but numbers don't completely tell the entire story. For example, does 80 mean that someone is capable of operating Microsoft Excel in advance? Definition of the advance may also vary. The score obtained by learners will be a benchmarking point for many parties, such as parents, recruiters, and admissions are a few common examples. When institutions or educators only display a Certified of Professional certificate, or an A grade, or a score of 89%, then the interpretations that arise from the readers can vary. Interpretation forms expectations and ultimately the learner must account for these expectations. It is very risky if there are discrepancies or gaps between them.

Displaying student grades without evidence of learning can raise accountability issues. From an educator's perspective, it's like, "I've done my part, the rest is up to you." The ideal educator should not just let go of it, even though it is true that what a person learns will be lost in memory along with the formation of new memories over time. This issue is also studied by Dunn, Parry, and Morgan (2002),

"The establishment of appropriate criteria and standards for student achievement are far from clear among academics."

Embibe, an emerging, India-based individual learning platform, contains "There is a lack of transparency in the assessment system." in their blog published in 2020.

Some stakeholders' representatives of schools in America also expressed similar challenges towards the learning assessment in K-12 website (2018). It is abstruse to present learners' ability in a standardized number while the cope of the domain is getting broader every year.

Cope conveyed in the online Assessment for Learning class that a digital portfolio is able to address this discrepancy issue, this changing standard issue.

Taylor and Nolen identify several different kinds of portfolios, each one having a different purpose: showcase portfolios, growth portfolios, process portfolios, and cumulative portfolios.

Digital portfolios as above are highly recommended to accompany the grade given by institutions or educators. A digital portfolio is not just an alternative assessment but an epistemic artifact that provides a clear interpretation of one's capability of particular knowledge or skill.

Digital portfolios interface could be designed as a picture below:

source: Author

Feedback in terms of scores and inputs both from peers and teachers or facilitators can also be uploaded to showcase that the learners are engaged to the learning contents.

Upload it or not, the problem is still the same, isn't it?

Yes. Society will still face the same problem. The unclear standard to judge learners' capability.

How society judge ones' capability

But, with the artifacts of learning. The grade will be more sensible. The artifacts uploaded are the demonstration of what learners were obtaining and improving. That is how institutions or educators account for their assessments.

References:

• Ornstein and Hunkins (2018), Curriculum Foundations, Principles, and Issues, 7th Edition, available at: https://www.amazon.com/Curriculum-Foundations-Principles-Educational-Leadership/dp/0134060350
• Riddell (2018), 4 Administrators Share Their Greatest Challenges in Assessing Student Progress, K-12, available at: https://www.k12dive.com/news/4-administrators-share-their-greatest-challenges-in-assessing-student-progr/521248/
• Embibe (2020), Assessment Challenges For Teachers in School Education – Opportunities & Evaluation, available at: https://www.embibe.com/exams/assessment-challenges-for-teachers-in-school-education/
• Dunn, Parry, and Morgan (2002), Seeking Quality in Criterion Referenced Assessment, available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002257.htm