At school I was consistently the one who tried the "alternate" method. By which I mean; when setting a task to the class there was always a heavy suggestion of "how it should be done" or "the tool to use". Often with a "and you also might consider if you have the time..."
My approach was always to play with that alternative (which was really thrown in for us to say "we considered it" in the report :)). And as a result always used to suffer.
Sometimes because of unfinished work (but, hey, I was exploring something difficult!), or because it was unexpected. By about 16 this was massively disheartening; I've always had a deep interest in exploring a problem rather than having it laid out on a plate, but whenever I did the school frowned on it.
A lot of kids have this problem; when I teach clubs/classes now I get them expecting to be marked to a set scheme, having to hit certain keywords to get the marks.
On the face of it, sure, standardised marking has strong advantages when class teaching. But the objectives are too rigid and do not allow for individuals who are developing an understanding, rather than following the script.
The saving grace was 6th form (aged 17/18) where my Electronics teacher convinced me to try something really ambitious and explorative (for a 17 year old newbie engineer!). Mostly it went wrong - but our team got the highest marks in the class. The comment I distinctly remember being on our report(s) was: "I have no idea how you got that second part to work, but it was brilliant!"
Guess what I did at university