Could you kindly provide some specific examples? It would be especially helpful for the discussion here if you could provide some citations to scholarly publications on other ways to evaluate teachers.
Also, around 10th grade, every single teacher in the entire school rewrote their syllabus. From there on, the ones with appropriate degrees in math and science - you know, the ones that actually knew what they were doing - complained bitterly about how hard it was to teach both the stuff that mattered and the stuff that was on the test.
Where?
Again, how do you know objectives were being met? Please clearly state your evaluation procedure.
...complained bitterly about how hard it was to teach both the stuff that mattered and the stuff that was on the test.
I've made similar complaints - Calc syllabi suck. Too many stupid algebra tricks, too little conceptual reasoning. This is a problem with the syllabus, not the test.
All the test does is reveals when you stop doing your job and teach whatever you feel like, rather than what you are being paid to teach.
The controversy about teaching children to read using either 'whole words' or 'phonics' (and sub-forms of phonics) is a nice example of some teachers not working to an evidence base and causing harm to their students.
How do you know this? Even in principle, how could you know this?
To me, it sounds like "I was such a good government contractor before they started auditing me and making sure I actually delivered what was promised."