School psych eval vs private

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What school does is not comparable, it's more limited in scope, and school based specialists don't have same credentials as a pediatric neuropsych practitioners, usually. Also school based staff have inherent conflict of interest - based on their conclusions school has to ration scarse public resources, so if something is subtle, it may not be included.

Our school eval was basically identical to the Children’s eval. I don’t think they did ADOS though. And disabilities are not “subtle” anyway.

I guess you missed it when they have told you repeatedly that many disabilities are in fact invisible. Do you go yelling at people who park in the handicapped spots because they don't have a wheelchair or cane?

so subtle it cannot be detected by a psychologist administering normed tests? lol.

The two models are looking for entirely different things. Privately, the provider is looking for any area of weakness. In a school, they are looking for disability to consider qualification. You're not comparing apples to apples.

The tests are the same though. And I don’t actually want my kid to be picked over for “any area of weakness” - he’s a child, not a lab experiment.

Even if the tests are the same, the purposes and interpretation are not, and therefore the outcomes may be different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What school does is not comparable, it's more limited in scope, and school based specialists don't have same credentials as a pediatric neuropsych practitioners, usually. Also school based staff have inherent conflict of interest - based on their conclusions school has to ration scarse public resources, so if something is subtle, it may not be included.

Our school eval was basically identical to the Children’s eval. I don’t think they did ADOS though. And disabilities are not “subtle” anyway.

Good for you. But my child had a documented gross motor and small motor delay (by a developmental pediatrician at childrens) and the school eval didn't mention either one. Lower elementary age.

did you get an OT evaluation from the school? we had an OT evaluation by an OT and the WISC etc by the school psychologist. We had gross motor done by an Early Stages PT earlier as well.

I have lots to complain about in terms of special ed, but testing isn’t one of them!

Maybe you can tell us which wonderful school district/pyramid you're in, so we can all move there? Because it sounds so unlike what I and many other parents experienced on this board.

Our elementary feeds into Pyle/Whitman. OT report had a different child's birthdate and wrong placement in it - a sloppy cut/paste job. OT said that skills weren't observed in classroom observation, but appeared to be there in a 1:1 testing 2 months later. During IPE mtg I asked to do another observation to confirm that the skills are now generalized in the classroom context and ... nothing.

When the tester wrote that there skills weren't observed during the classroom observation, it means the child did not have the opportunity to use those skills based on the classroom activities at the time. Also, providers are not required to address generalization. If the child has the skill in the therapy setting, it is expected that classroom staff prompt them to use the skills in the classroom. Asking a specialized service provider to do so does not constitute specialized instruction and is not something we can bill for or provide...we provide specialized instruction, not reminders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in the schools. The private psych evals I see are not more extensive than school. I think school evals are way more comprehensive. Private evals also don’t include input from the school team, who has invaluable info to add about how the student is actually doing at school. School psych evals can do the testing and the parent rating scales.
I also see private evals frequently making recommendations for what should happen in the school setting, and the providers clearly have no idea or understanding of school model, Doe/LRE requirements, or laws. Of course the private providers think they are better and think they know best.

Private providers not accepting insurance is unethical and those providers have a conflict of interest (financial) with every single case. Remember you are their Customer And profit.

I worked in public schools for over 10 years as a school psych before opening up a private practice and find your post factually incorrect and offensive. My private practice reports are considerably more thorough compared to my previous school reports, because I have more time, flexibility, and access to more tests. Also, I do not have an unreasonable caseload that severely limits the amount of time I can spend on a child evaluation. I also consult with classroom teachers and distribute rating scales to teachers and special educators. Lastly, I do pro bono work for clients with financial constraints so their child can have a comprehensive evaluation that the school failed to do.

Your comments are laughable. show me ONE private psych report that "consulted with teachers." Nonsense. Not one. By "consulting with parents," you mean that you had them complete rating scales... which is hardly "consulting" and which a school psych (or even a pediatrician!) can do. You consult with parents, who offer great perspective...but offer only one perspective and have different knowledge than professionals. While school staff do have unreasonable caseloads, they have a legal DUTY and ethical obligation to complete a thorough assessment which is much more involved...because it services to make eligibility determinations and for educational planning. Private psych reports do not have that duty.

And yes it is 100% true that any private practice professional who does not accept insurance is unethical. It is 100% true that you have a conflict of interest with all of your clients who are your "customers" versus your "patients." it is despicable to me. The fact that you come on here and post to defend yourself about this proves my point. Wow gold star for you for doing "pro bono work" for families with financial constraints. No family should be expected to pay thousands of dollars for an assessment that should be covered by insurance or cost a more reasonable fee.

Stop talking down about school professionals and your colleagues.

Uh, yes?? My private eval absolutely consulted the teachers. wtf are you talking about???

I think we have different definitions of "consulting with the teachers." There is alot more to "consulting" than having teachers fill out rating scales and never speaking with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in the schools. The private psych evals I see are not more extensive than school. I think school evals are way more comprehensive. Private evals also don’t include input from the school team, who has invaluable info to add about how the student is actually doing at school. School psych evals can do the testing and the parent rating scales.
I also see private evals frequently making recommendations for what should happen in the school setting, and the providers clearly have no idea or understanding of school model, Doe/LRE requirements, or laws. Of course the private providers think they are better and think they know best.

Private providers not accepting insurance is unethical and those providers have a conflict of interest (financial) with every single case. Remember you are their Customer And profit.

I worked in public schools for over 10 years as a school psych before opening up a private practice and find your post factually incorrect and offensive. My private practice reports are considerably more thorough compared to my previous school reports, because I have more time, flexibility, and access to more tests. Also, I do not have an unreasonable caseload that severely limits the amount of time I can spend on a child evaluation. I also consult with classroom teachers and distribute rating scales to teachers and special educators. Lastly, I do pro bono work for clients with financial constraints so their child can have a comprehensive evaluation that the school failed to do.

Your comments are laughable. show me ONE private psych report that "consulted with teachers." Nonsense. Not one. By "consulting with parents," you mean that you had them complete rating scales... which is hardly "consulting" and which a school psych (or even a pediatrician!) can do. You consult with parents, who offer great perspective...but offer only one perspective and have different knowledge than professionals. While school staff do have unreasonable caseloads, they have a legal DUTY and ethical obligation to complete a thorough assessment which is much more involved...because it services to make eligibility determinations and for educational planning. Private psych reports do not have that duty.

And yes it is 100% true that any private practice professional who does not accept insurance is unethical. It is 100% true that you have a conflict of interest with all of your clients who are your "customers" versus your "patients." it is despicable to me. The fact that you come on here and post to defend yourself about this proves my point. Wow gold star for you for doing "pro bono work" for families with financial constraints. No family should be expected to pay thousands of dollars for an assessment that should be covered by insurance or cost a more reasonable fee.

Stop talking down about school professionals and your colleagues.

Uh, yes?? My private eval absolutely consulted the teachers. wtf are you talking about???

I think we have different definitions of "consulting with the teachers." There is alot more to "consulting" than having teachers fill out rating scales and never speaking with them.

DP mine did literally speak with the teachers.

Just stop. You're posting inaccurate information that is totally inconsistent with what many people, including special educators themselves, observe the real world.