How Would We Know Whether the "Reformers" are Succeeding or Not?

If we accept the "reformers" measure of test-based accountability, it seems they are failing.  Student scores generally only seem to improve when the tests are artificially engineered by the self-same "reformers" to make it appear so through manipulation of cut scores, level of questions and such.  

"Reformers," of course, don't have any measures of accountability that apply to their own job performance.  So, I sometimes wonder what measures I might use.  I  would look at how their policies affect children and teachers.  I suppose in the world of "reforminess" this is a novel idea. 

Do children still enjoy learning in school to the same degree?

Do children still have the opportunities to develop their three-dimensional self?

Do children still have the privilege to be different, and exceedingly creative, or does prepping towards a set of high-stakes test encourage uniformity?

Do teachers still have the same freedom to teach to the interests of students?

Do teachers feel that they are treated as professionals?

I wouldn't score how sharp I feel and how smug I am in making a test that people can't pass.  I wouldn't score ambiguous questions that even experts question.  David Coleman purportedly thinks we shouldn't give a sh-t about student feelings, but as someone once pointed out elsewhere, if Coleman truly feels this way, using the same logic, why should anyone give a sh-t about what he feels or "thinks"?