I agree, but my goal was more to share what I've seen of the process than to judge it. I think folks here are percipient enough to make those judgments independently. On top of that, I've long been out of the field and am far too ignorant too suggest alternatives, and that's what we seem to need more than critiques.
I've long been out of the field
These observations, though amateur and unscientific, suggest a few solutions. Basically, go back to relative rankings, do a lot less testing, and start rewarding uniqueness. Teachers need to have time to actually teach outside hitting every checkbox on list for the end-of-the-year test. Teachers need to be able to teach to their own students, rather than to the lowest-common-denominator child in rural Alabama. Teachers need to be able to encourange and guide every student individually, developing artists, scientists, thinkers, and doers, rather than having to force every single child into the same standardized mold.
</rant>
If I were to guess, the types of questions you received were different, but the general process of how the tests were made remained the same. And that's the bureaucratic, lowest-common denominator mentality that pervades broadly given tests. And I agree with you that "[t]eachers need to be able to teach to their own students." I think that was a big part of the OP's point since that's something she does.
It's all part of the conundrum: Everyone wants good teachers and accountability in education, but there doesn't appear to be a high-level way of making such assessments that can pass the necessary political muster.
...lowest-common denominator mentality...
After reading your initial comment, I couldn't help noticing that you might have meant "lowest-common-denominator mentality." Consider this pedantism a subtle way of saying, "I read your comment completely; thanks for posting it."