Don't get me wrong, I think that if there are poor teachers then they should be dealt with, but I think that these standardised tests of kids across the board are not the way to go about it. I'm thinking maybe something like a "peer review" type system could be put in place that takes more into account than just the output of the kids on one test (the results of continuous assessment across the whole year, for example; teaching reviews, etc.). Of course this would come with its own issues, but it would certainly cut down on the pressure that comes from that one test!
The tragedy is that teachers who don't teach to the test and provide an excellent education that is tailored to the children they have are starting to worry about the security of their jobs, whereas poor teachers who have no real ability except to regurgitate the texts and drill the kids on process and recitation are relatively safe.
Evidence for this empirical statement? I have my doubts about this, because the best teachers I had in childhood (too few, but more than one) were able both to engage the pupils from the dullest to the brightest with deep, thoughtful questions and able to cover the fundamental facts of the lessons with efficiency.
This is all they talk about after school...
In the case of a programmer, the number of lines of code output, or the number of functions written, or the number of bugs detected and fixed, can all be achieved with less "true value output" (whatever that means). The measurement can be gamed.
Teachers in the UK have been accused of "teaching to the test" rather than "teaching for understanding" - but what more can be expected? When exams test for understanding rather than rote skills, only then will understanding be the aim of the teachers looking for the easy way out.
Let me add that I know many dedicated teachers who do the right thing regardless of the threats posed. They encourage and enthuse their students, ranging widely over their subject to get the students engaged and interested. They know that this serves them better, and will, mostly, improve the test scores, even if not as much as "teaching to the test" would. They know they're doing the right thing, but come under enormous pressure to work more obviously towards improving test scores.
I'm not surprised that many of them buckle under the strain and take less honorable courses.
That's part of the tragedy - the destruction of otherwise excellent teachers.