I agree with your overall sentiment. I think most teachers are against these metrics just because they've only encountered bad ones. How to fix the metrics?

I agree with your overall sentiment. I think most teachers are against these metrics just because they've only encountered bad ones. How to fix the metrics? In the UK, governments have set up a system whereby schools can choose which exam board they want to have for each subject. Each exam board makes and marks its own exams. Exam boards are motivated to be cheap, generous with the marks, and give workshops you have to pay to attend where they give you information about what will be on this year's exams. The exam boards are not motivated to make decent exams. They are riddled with mistakes, and do not adequately test students' understanding of the subjects. Look at some of the GCSE IS/IT/ICT exams; you can find them online. You'll see vaguely-phrased mini-essay questions, where students get marks based on how many of the required points they make, where the points are listed in the examiner's marking guide. If you make a point that wasn't anticipated by the people who set the exams, you're not getting any points. Problem is, the questions are so open and vague that students will be fumbling around in the dark if they don't know specifically what examiners are looking for. It really is just a matter of teaching to the test. You need to have learned specifically what the examiners are looking for. It doesn't matter whether you know much about ICT or not. So what's the point? It's supposed to be an ICT exam, not a jumping-through-examiners'-hoops exam.