In some sense, yes - evaluation in high school math, physics, and similar quantitative fields has been reduced to proctored problem sets. Even in so-called advanced classes, this has come at a cost. Evaluations rarely assess creativity, independent reasoning, or even a non-trivial proof - because every problem must be part of a strictly time-limited problem set, with no space for real challenge or even a few hours of thought.
To date, writing has evaded this trap. Sure, students write short essays during timed exams, but they also wrestle with more complex ideas and topics in longer assignments. Those assignments often take days, or even weeks, to do well.
I’m not sure what the future of those longer assignments is. I’m a bit disturbed by the idea that reading widely, thinking deeply, and distilling a few pages of coherent thoughts may not be an important part of early education. (Schools don’t always teach this well today, but at least we expect them to try.)
Schools don’t teach it well because of no child left behind - how you write for a test is very different from how you’d write in a more literary or journalistic context.
(Or if you can assemble a formula sheet and pull a b after copying answers from the back of the textbook then you earned it)