Seems sensible to me. Improvement is the proverbial "learning to learn" lesson. It's also motivating and being motivated by improvement is a great mental habit.
This is what testing should be focused on, IMO. Creating some visibility for the learner on long and short term progress, and a "reward" for improvement.
The canonical system (IMO) for this is Kano Jigoro's judo belt system and its descendants. Works great for kids. Seems like we could do it for math or reading too.
What does that mean in practice, though? Take learning: is simply having learned more an improvement? Then almost any kid qualifies. Is it learning better/faster than before? Then what happens when the kid reaches a very high level and eventually plateaus? Do you stop praising them despite being one of the best?
That's more of a pedagogical question than one with a concrete answer. To your last point: I don't think being the best is something that merits praise, necessarily. A 10000% improvement, whatever that means to you, is probably more "impressive" than being the best, but only seeing fractional gains.
This is what testing should be focused on, IMO. Creating some visibility for the learner on long and short term progress, and a "reward" for improvement.
The canonical system (IMO) for this is Kano Jigoro's judo belt system and its descendants. Works great for kids. Seems like we could do it for math or reading too.