1 / An age-focused mapping of activities to the student. If you hear any refrain of age-linked curriculum, run!
I wanted to quote all of your post... But I am too tired to respond to all of it. It's sad really that the second list is so much more relatable than the first. And this. So much this.
6 / Mapping work streams to the weakest skill on display. This has included misunderstanding the gap between cognitive output and physical output and/or not showing the initiative to disentangle the two to get to the root cause. Also, I've personally experienced a few teachers who failed to account for gaps between executive function and cognition, provide appropriate scaffolding.
And this. I find schools do things to gifted children, especially 2E children, that they would not do to a more typically progressing child with a weakness. The attitude seems to be that typically performing children should be scaffolded in their weak areas and allowed (even pushed) to progress, while gifted children should be held back to the level of their weakest skill.
At the same school, with the same reading standards/policies, only a year apart, I watched those rules being applied radically differently to a dyslexic and severely delayed reader vs very advanced reader.
