"Students learning on there own and striving to do better is never punished"
Well I am a counterexample to that statement. I was punished year after year because I spent my time learning instead of doing my homework.
"Saying they are punished would mean the answers they are provide are technically right but graded as wrong."
Yes, that is exactly what happens, especially in math courses. Answers that are not only technically right, but which show a serious of logically consistent steps leading from the question to the answer, but where the steps diverge from what the teacher taught the student to do, are often marked as "wrong" or worse still, marked as "right" but with a point taken off for using a different technique. It happened to me on more than one occasion, and it happened to friends of mine.
"Also i am in no way saying a student should ever skip school to learn on there own."
Why not? If the goal of school is to educate students, does it really matter if a student attends class to learn or skips class to learn the material on their own? Does it make a different if a student skips class to learn, and then comes to the teacher outside of class to ask questions? Why is sitting in a classroom so important that we must punish students who fail to do so?
"I was punished year after year because I spent my time learning instead of doing my homework."
You were punished for not doing your homework, not because you spent your time learning. Just because you made these two things coincide for you does not mean that they have to.
For your second point yes this is a problem, but its more a problem with the teachers then what was mentioned in the article. And as i pointed out in my previous comment this depends on what the teacher is testing over. If they just want you to get the right answer(which is usually not the case) then yes it is wrong to count of for using a method other then what they taught. But if they are testing you over the method that they taught then yes you should get points taken off.
IMO this directly depends on the level of schooling. If you are in college and you are paying for your education you should have every right to come when you want. But at the same time if its part of the teachers grading is attendance then you as a student have the choice to ether follow it or not. You should be required to attend classes.
If you don't need to go to class to learn then go take all the ACT's and SAT's you want and get yourself into college without them and stop whining. Otherwise go to school.
Funnily enough, I was punished once in middle school for doing my assignments.
After one particular social studies class, in which I had finished all the work, I opened my reading book. In our English class, you read any (approved) book you wanted to and took comprehension tests afterwards. You accumulated points and you had a goal to meet as one particular assignment (e.g. reading skill level of X meant you had to score 300 points, whether you got that in 10 books or 50 that was your choice). I reading that book and got a silent lunch for it. Apparently the correct response to finishing all your work early was to do nothing for that particular teacher. For the other teachers in that same group (math, science, English) reading your book was the approved thing to do after you finish your work.
I remember doing the same in middle school. Cant remember the name of the program for the life of me though. Thats ridiculous that you got punished for reading in a school, especially in that situation.
Our program was called "Accelerated Reader" or AR. Other schools may have different program names. I know the accelerated classes went through 3 or 4 renames.
"You were punished for not doing your homework, not because you spent your time learning. Just because you made these two things coincide for you does not mean that they have to."
Assuming, of course, that the volume of homework is sufficiently low to actually leave time or mental energy for anything else. I am not sure that is something that we can just assume, although I will admit that I did not really bother to find out how long my homework would have taken in middle school. Really though, the punishment for not turning in homework is handed down regardless of whether or not students spent their time on something with more educational value, and that is what I think is wrong here. Doing your homework is more important than learning; if doing homework coincides with learning, that's good, but there is no requirement of that or even any consideration of the possibility that the homework might have no educational value.
"If you don't need to go to class to learn then go take all the ACT's and SAT's you want and get yourself into college without them and stop whining. Otherwise go to school."
Of course, colleges also demand to see your high school transcript, and top schools will reject students whose high school GPA does not meet a certain threshold, so what you seem to be portraying as a student's choice is not much of a choice at all. High school grades can have consequences years later; when I was an undergrad, I went to MIT to ask about their graduate program, and they stopped answering my questions as soon as I mentioned what college I was attending. I had top marks on the SAT and SAT II exams, but without a report card to back that up I was not accepted to a top tier university. I am by no means alone in this; I met plenty of other people like myself in college, and this sort of story can be heard elsewhere.
It is not a matter of whining, it is a problem with the approach we take to education. Students who "play the game" get ahead; learning the material is secondary and on its own it gets students nowhere (on the other handing, forgetting the material at the end of the academic year or gaining the minimal understanding needed to receive a high grade is not punished or discouraged). Disobedience means closed doors, regardless of whether or not a student has mastered the curriculum they were supposed to be taught. If this sounds like the rest of life, well, that is exactly the point of school right? To prepare students for life -- both by teaching the skills needed to survive, and by teaching students to abide by the rules of the system they will be expected to live in.
"...that is exactly the point of school right? To prepare students for life -- both by teaching the skills needed to survive, and by teaching students to abide by the rules of the system they will be expected to live in."
Yes indeed. Part of school is socialization. You say it like it's a bad thing.
"if doing homework coincides with learning, that's good, but there is no requirement of that or even any consideration of the possibility that the homework might have no educational value."
Do you really believe that the teachers aren't trying to make the homework useful? That they are just trying to waste kids' time? Do you know any teachers as an adult?
"Do you really believe that the teachers aren't trying to make the homework useful? That they are just trying to waste kids' time? Do you know any teachers as an adult?"
No, teachers are not trying to waste students time with homework, at least not that I am aware. Yet that does not mean that the homework cannot be a waste of time for a student. The problem is that in a typical American school, a student whose time would be wasted on homework will be punished for failing to do that homework. Homework may have no educational value for a student who already understands the material, but such students are generally expected to complete the homework anyway. The penalty for not doing homework is given regardless of the educational value of the homework; hence a student who has top marks on every exam/written assignment, who is tutoring other students in the class, can still receive low or even failing grades.
That's true. The system has settled - after a few millennia of experience - on an all-students-gotta-do-their-homework model. What scalable, affordable system would have the best total outome, given real student populations? That's the problem for the public system to address. Note that this is not the same question as "what's best for betterunix".
I have a lot of sympathy for you, as a student who did as little homework as I could get away with or a little less. Lucky for me that exams were more important back then. I might have more trouble nowadays.
Well I am a counterexample to that statement. I was punished year after year because I spent my time learning instead of doing my homework.
"Saying they are punished would mean the answers they are provide are technically right but graded as wrong."
Yes, that is exactly what happens, especially in math courses. Answers that are not only technically right, but which show a serious of logically consistent steps leading from the question to the answer, but where the steps diverge from what the teacher taught the student to do, are often marked as "wrong" or worse still, marked as "right" but with a point taken off for using a different technique. It happened to me on more than one occasion, and it happened to friends of mine.
"Also i am in no way saying a student should ever skip school to learn on there own."
Why not? If the goal of school is to educate students, does it really matter if a student attends class to learn or skips class to learn the material on their own? Does it make a different if a student skips class to learn, and then comes to the teacher outside of class to ask questions? Why is sitting in a classroom so important that we must punish students who fail to do so?