I don't want to get into a huge educational-philosophical discussion in this thread but what it comes down to is people (politicians, admins, parents, etc0 want numbers and/or stats they can point to and say "this is working" or "this isn't working". Or "look at how well/bad our kids are doing".
To me "teaching to the test" means that the bottom line as far as your lessons and approach go is improving test scores even if it has nothing to do with the kids actually knowing or understanding the subject matter. And when it comes to the current standardized test we use (pure multiple choice) it is mostly teaching kids facts and teaching them how to take a multiple choice tests.
I don't think there is any reason to not have a discussion in here as long as it doesn't get in the way of making fun of my gas-pumping habits or Zook's rotten weiner.
Regarding point one: The problem with the quantifying of results by politicians and administrators is that the parents are complicit in it. They want a way to know their kid is doing "well "or "better" than other kids. So scoring things becomes imperative (supposedly).
Regarding point two: Part of the problem is that it's a multiple choice test so a lot of the test doesn't teach process or problem solve but rather fact recollection. Agreed - I see the issue.
What about having a different evaluation method? Why not something extreme like peer review where teachers from different districts trade classrooms for a couple weeks each semester and perform evaluations? An educator - a good one - should be able to walk in to a classroom and with a little time evaluate if the students are "getting it" or not.