Neurospych Testing Recs- Who did you use and did you love them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Kennedy Krieger?

Haven't used her but Dr. Alison Mostow at KKI was recommended to us.

She is a clinical psychologist, not Neurodevelopmental one. We had a 3 hr evaluation with her for a child of 5 and she explained the difference between her eval and full neuropsych. I found the results of testing informative and she was very attentive, but the report disappointed me a bit. It was basically a very careful record of everything we said at parents' intake, some stuff from other specialist reports we submitted and then test results. In terms of recommendations she endorsed everything we were already doing (truth be told, we are doing a lot), so I didn't come away with a sense of fine-tuned direction or understanding what we should do more of or less of.

An important note for those who need to lean on heavily on neuropsych results in IEP process - the KKI recommendations were phrased as "may benefit from", we asked to revise to a more persuasive language and got "xyz is recommended". This may depend on individual child's profile, but nothing in the report said "required" which is strange to me. My child is broadly at age expectation academically for K, but has AuDHD, dev. delay, general emotional immaturity and elevated anxiety scores. So with this report if we were doing K at public school, getting any service minutes would not be a given with this type of report. We did have a good parent feedback session and discussed all questions that we raised.

I have no issues with test results and am glad I was able to get my child tested by a reputable specialist at a place that takes our insurance, but I felt like for the next neuropsych whenever it happens to be, I will go with a different practice, privately. Also, KKI doesn't do 2 versions of report like some private practices do.

I think you are expecting to much. Evaluations and “neuropsychs” give you objective results based on normed instruments. Specific details and projections about what your particular kid needs are not really able to be discerned except on a general level for what the practitioner recommends for other kids with similar profiles. You need to work with therapists and schools to figure out what is really going to work for your child in practice.

I've been struggling with this conceptually over the years. Coordination of care. SLP can assess language, OT - her domain, ABA - behaviors. Who is supposed to look at the child wholistically and pin point issues that are not squarely in one of these? If there is limited time or resources, who can tell you how to prioritize or sequence interventions? Who is supposed to tell the family what tier 1 problems/goals are and which ones are tier 2 or 3? I was told that this is dev. ped. OK, we have a very nice one at Childrens but we see her every 8 months or so for 1 hr. Is she supposed to read reams of reports from other therapists to fully wrap her head around my child's profile and give this guidance to the family? It's not happening. She answers questions, confirms that we're generally on track, can recommend providers if we can't find a good one in a specific area, but doesn't tell me what to do in the next 12-18-24 months to support progress. I love all of our providers, but they are in private practice, nobody is going to say you can drop me to once in 2 weeks and ramp up hours with provider X in another domain. I am an educated professional who is committed to help my child, but I am a lay person in special needs domain, how am I supposed to figure it out? Neuropsych costs several thousand dollars and I "expect too much" because they are only accountable for reporting standartized test results for this money? Come on.

I think nobody knows what you should do, is the honest truth. I have a teen, have spent tens of thousands of dollars on neuropsychs, psychiatrists, therapists, psychologists, medical workups. I feel like all our most useful interventions are ideas we thought of (my and my spouse). We get compassionate support and/or prescriptions from the specialists, many of whom my child has a warm longtime relationship with, and occasionally a nugget of interesting info. But very little guidance, and less and less as our child gets older.

I have a 12th and a 9th grader, both have had 4 neuropsych evaluations so far and I can even count how many interventions, specialists etc. I think of the neuropsych as more of a checkup on the results measures now.

The diagnoses have shifted over time, but they now match what our experienced developmental pediatrician suggested when they were both in preschool. She explained that sometimes you can only be certain of a diagnosis once you see how a child responds to an intervention.

I’ve come to realize that the people whose perspective was the most helpful were the practitioners who have seen lots of kids develop over a longer period of time. They were able to provide helpful context and interpretation about the data I had and the likely trajectory for them developmentally along with the best interventions at that point in time.

For us those were an experienced developmental pediatrician, a first grade teacher, a special education teacher, a former special education teacher turned ABA therapist, an Orton Gillingham Fellow, and a parent who had adult neurodiverse children similar to ours who had successfully launched.

In each case I would, somewhat desperately, ask what should I be doing more of and less of now and in the near future. How do I know when to change how we’re supporting?

Once we had enough trust they could share their perspective and I understood that their predictions and suggestions might not be perfect.

I think the breakdown in trust between parents/ schools (for many legitimate reasons) is a huge barrier to developing this sort of relationship with teachers now.

But I will forever be grateful to the people
Who took risks to coach me through parenting my kids and continue to do so.

To answer OPs question-
Laurie Smith in Vienna celebrates with us when my daughter repeats evaluations with her. She excitedly shows her how far she’s come from the kindergartner who first walked into her office. She is amazing for dyslexia, dyscalculia, and ADHD.

Anna at Paving Pathways ABA is an amazing professional and partner for complicated kids. She helped me understand that although I wanted to differentiate between ADHD/ Anxiety/ Autism, that the most critical thing to do was to support my child behaviorally. And then she taught us how.

Our developmental pediatrician has retired. Dr Dan Shapiro has a similar energy and perspective so I attend his classes when possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Kennedy Krieger?

Haven't used her but Dr. Alison Mostow at KKI was recommended to us.

She is a clinical psychologist, not Neurodevelopmental one. We had a 3 hr evaluation with her for a child of 5 and she explained the difference between her eval and full neuropsych. I found the results of testing informative and she was very attentive, but the report disappointed me a bit. It was basically a very careful record of everything we said at parents' intake, some stuff from other specialist reports we submitted and then test results. In terms of recommendations she endorsed everything we were already doing (truth be told, we are doing a lot), so I didn't come away with a sense of fine-tuned direction or understanding what we should do more of or less of.

An important note for those who need to lean on heavily on neuropsych results in IEP process - the KKI recommendations were phrased as "may benefit from", we asked to revise to a more persuasive language and got "xyz is recommended". This may depend on individual child's profile, but nothing in the report said "required" which is strange to me. My child is broadly at age expectation academically for K, but has AuDHD, dev. delay, general emotional immaturity and elevated anxiety scores. So with this report if we were doing K at public school, getting any service minutes would not be a given with this type of report. We did have a good parent feedback session and discussed all questions that we raised.

I have no issues with test results and am glad I was able to get my child tested by a reputable specialist at a place that takes our insurance, but I felt like for the next neuropsych whenever it happens to be, I will go with a different practice, privately. Also, KKI doesn't do 2 versions of report like some private practices do.

I think you are expecting to much. Evaluations and “neuropsychs” give you objective results based on normed instruments. Specific details and projections about what your particular kid needs are not really able to be discerned except on a general level for what the practitioner recommends for other kids with similar profiles. You need to work with therapists and schools to figure out what is really going to work for your child in practice.

I've been struggling with this conceptually over the years. Coordination of care. SLP can assess language, OT - her domain, ABA - behaviors. Who is supposed to look at the child wholistically and pin point issues that are not squarely in one of these? If there is limited time or resources, who can tell you how to prioritize or sequence interventions? Who is supposed to tell the family what tier 1 problems/goals are and which ones are tier 2 or 3? I was told that this is dev. ped. OK, we have a very nice one at Childrens but we see her every 8 months or so for 1 hr. Is she supposed to read reams of reports from other therapists to fully wrap her head around my child's profile and give this guidance to the family? It's not happening. She answers questions, confirms that we're generally on track, can recommend providers if we can't find a good one in a specific area, but doesn't tell me what to do in the next 12-18-24 months to support progress. I love all of our providers, but they are in private practice, nobody is going to say you can drop me to once in 2 weeks and ramp up hours with provider X in another domain. I am an educated professional who is committed to help my child, but I am a lay person in special needs domain, how am I supposed to figure it out? Neuropsych costs several thousand dollars and I "expect too much" because they are only accountable for reporting standartized test results for this money? Come on.

I think nobody knows what you should do, is the honest truth. I have a teen, have spent tens of thousands of dollars on neuropsychs, psychiatrists, therapists, psychologists, medical workups. I feel like all our most useful interventions are ideas we thought of (my and my spouse). We get compassionate support and/or prescriptions from the specialists, many of whom my child has a warm longtime relationship with, and occasionally a nugget of interesting info. But very little guidance, and less and less as our child gets older.

I have a 12th and a 9th grader, both have had 4 neuropsych evaluations so far and I can even count how many interventions, specialists etc. I think of the neuropsych as more of a checkup on the results measures now.

The diagnoses have shifted over time, but they now match what our experienced developmental pediatrician suggested when they were both in preschool. She explained that sometimes you can only be certain of a diagnosis once you see how a child responds to an intervention.

I’ve come to realize that the people whose perspective was the most helpful were the practitioners who have seen lots of kids develop over a longer period of time. They were able to provide helpful context and interpretation about the data I had and the likely trajectory for them developmentally along with the best interventions at that point in time.

For us those were an experienced developmental pediatrician, a first grade teacher, a special education teacher, a former special education teacher turned ABA therapist, an Orton Gillingham Fellow, and a parent who had adult neurodiverse children similar to ours who had successfully launched.

In each case I would, somewhat desperately, ask what should I be doing more of and less of now and in the near future. How do I know when to change how we’re supporting?

Once we had enough trust they could share their perspective and I understood that their predictions and suggestions might not be perfect.

I think the breakdown in trust between parents/ schools (for many legitimate reasons) is a huge barrier to developing this sort of relationship with teachers now.

But I will forever be grateful to the people
Who took risks to coach me through parenting my kids and continue to do so.

To answer OPs question-
Laurie Smith in Vienna celebrates with us when my daughter repeats evaluations with her. She excitedly shows her how far she’s come from the kindergartner who first walked into her office. She is amazing for dyslexia, dyscalculia, and ADHD.

Anna at Paving Pathways ABA is an amazing professional and partner for complicated kids. She helped me understand that although I wanted to differentiate between ADHD/ Anxiety/ Autism, that the most critical thing to do was to support my child behaviorally. And then she taught us how.

Our developmental pediatrician has retired. Dr Dan Shapiro has a similar energy and perspective so I attend his classes when possible.

Thank you so much for taking the time to share this reflection. I think this is exactly what I needed to hear, and it's very valuable coming from someone with 2 older kids. Wishing you all the best on this journey and meaningful successes to your children as they go forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Kennedy Krieger?

Haven't used her but Dr. Alison Mostow at KKI was recommended to us.

.

“may benefit from” is more professionally accurate than “requires.”

I disagree. It's far more generic. A very big proportion of children "may benefit" from smaller classroom sizes and individualized instruction. But for children with certain profiles it may be the difference between staying on grade level or not, having meltdowns or not, ruined self esteem or not, school refusal down the line or not.

For "may benefit from" I can read a book on general topics about ASD children, listen to podcasts, chat on a forum like this one. Expecting clarity on what supports and settings your child needs is not outlandish. Providing this clarity is not unprofessional.

You yourself said that your child is broadly on level in kindergarten - maybe your child doesn't "require" very specific interventions in order to function at school. "May benefit" might fit. You seem to be generalizing your child's evaluation to an entire practice.

I have two child who have been tested for different conditions - one with significant needs and one with mild ADHD. For the first, I have had evaluations say that he needs very specific supports in order to function. For the second, I had many "may benefit" type of recommendations, which absolutely fit. Recommendations are individualized to your child. It sounds like you wanted strongly worded recommendations to convince the school. An evaluation is a reflection of what the professional thinks based on their assessment - not on what the parent wants.

+100. Some evaluators may be more likely to use the mandatory language - I’m guessing its the ones who are private pay. But a good professional would likely not say “require” except in very clear-cut cases. My other concern is neuropsychologists giving clinically poor recommendations because they are not in fact specialists in your child or the underlying condition. For example, recommending approaches to anxiety that make it worse (over accomodating). And a lot of their recommendations are canned based on what they assume are limitations especially wrt autism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Kennedy Krieger?

Haven't used her but Dr. Alison Mostow at KKI was recommended to us.

.

“may benefit from” is more professionally accurate than “requires.”

I disagree. It's far more generic. A very big proportion of children "may benefit" from smaller classroom sizes and individualized instruction. But for children with certain profiles it may be the difference between staying on grade level or not, having meltdowns or not, ruined self esteem or not, school refusal down the line or not.

For "may benefit from" I can read a book on general topics about ASD children, listen to podcasts, chat on a forum like this one. Expecting clarity on what supports and settings your child needs is not outlandish. Providing this clarity is not unprofessional.

You yourself said that your child is broadly on level in kindergarten - maybe your child doesn't "require" very specific interventions in order to function at school. "May benefit" might fit. You seem to be generalizing your child's evaluation to an entire practice.

I have two child who have been tested for different conditions - one with significant needs and one with mild ADHD. For the first, I have had evaluations say that he needs very specific supports in order to function. For the second, I had many "may benefit" type of recommendations, which absolutely fit. Recommendations are individualized to your child. It sounds like you wanted strongly worded recommendations to convince the school. An evaluation is a reflection of what the professional thinks based on their assessment - not on what the parent wants.

+100. Some evaluators may be more likely to use the mandatory language - I’m guessing its the ones who are private pay. But a good professional would likely not say “require” except in very clear-cut cases. My other concern is neuropsychologists giving clinically poor recommendations because they are not in fact specialists in your child or the underlying condition. For example, recommending approaches to anxiety that make it worse (over accomodating). And a lot of their recommendations are canned based on what they assume are limitations especially wrt autism.

Our private eval used a mix of "should receive", "should include", "would benefit from", "requires" and "needs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Kennedy Krieger?

Haven't used her but Dr. Alison Mostow at KKI was recommended to us.

.

“may benefit from” is more professionally accurate than “requires.”

I disagree. It's far more generic. A very big proportion of children "may benefit" from smaller classroom sizes and individualized instruction. But for children with certain profiles it may be the difference between staying on grade level or not, having meltdowns or not, ruined self esteem or not, school refusal down the line or not.

For "may benefit from" I can read a book on general topics about ASD children, listen to podcasts, chat on a forum like this one. Expecting clarity on what supports and settings your child needs is not outlandish. Providing this clarity is not unprofessional.

You yourself said that your child is broadly on level in kindergarten - maybe your child doesn't "require" very specific interventions in order to function at school. "May benefit" might fit. You seem to be generalizing your child's evaluation to an entire practice.

I have two child who have been tested for different conditions - one with significant needs and one with mild ADHD. For the first, I have had evaluations say that he needs very specific supports in order to function. For the second, I had many "may benefit" type of recommendations, which absolutely fit. Recommendations are individualized to your child. It sounds like you wanted strongly worded recommendations to convince the school. An evaluation is a reflection of what the professional thinks based on their assessment - not on what the parent wants.

+100. Some evaluators may be more likely to use the mandatory language - I’m guessing its the ones who are private pay. But a good professional would likely not say “require” except in very clear-cut cases. My other concern is neuropsychologists giving clinically poor recommendations because they are not in fact specialists in your child or the underlying condition. For example, recommending approaches to anxiety that make it worse (over accomodating). And a lot of their recommendations are canned based on what they assume are limitations especially wrt autism.

Our private eval used a mix of "should receive", "should include", "would benefit from", "requires" and "needs".

If you can, please share the name of the practice, please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Kennedy Krieger?

Haven't used her but Dr. Alison Mostow at KKI was recommended to us.

.

“may benefit from” is more professionally accurate than “requires.”

I disagree. It's far more generic. A very big proportion of children "may benefit" from smaller classroom sizes and individualized instruction. But for children with certain profiles it may be the difference between staying on grade level or not, having meltdowns or not, ruined self esteem or not, school refusal down the line or not.

For "may benefit from" I can read a book on general topics about ASD children, listen to podcasts, chat on a forum like this one. Expecting clarity on what supports and settings your child needs is not outlandish. Providing this clarity is not unprofessional.

You yourself said that your child is broadly on level in kindergarten - maybe your child doesn't "require" very specific interventions in order to function at school. "May benefit" might fit. You seem to be generalizing your child's evaluation to an entire practice.

I have two child who have been tested for different conditions - one with significant needs and one with mild ADHD. For the first, I have had evaluations say that he needs very specific supports in order to function. For the second, I had many "may benefit" type of recommendations, which absolutely fit. Recommendations are individualized to your child. It sounds like you wanted strongly worded recommendations to convince the school. An evaluation is a reflection of what the professional thinks based on their assessment - not on what the parent wants.

+100. Some evaluators may be more likely to use the mandatory language - I’m guessing its the ones who are private pay. But a good professional would likely not say “require” except in very clear-cut cases. My other concern is neuropsychologists giving clinically poor recommendations because they are not in fact specialists in your child or the underlying condition. For example, recommending approaches to anxiety that make it worse (over accomodating). And a lot of their recommendations are canned based on what they assume are limitations especially wrt autism.

Our private eval used a mix of "should receive", "should include", "would benefit from", "requires" and "needs".

If you can, please share the name of the practice, please?

CAAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Kennedy Krieger?

Haven't used her but Dr. Alison Mostow at KKI was recommended to us.

.

“may benefit from” is more professionally accurate than “requires.”

I disagree. It's far more generic. A very big proportion of children "may benefit" from smaller classroom sizes and individualized instruction. But for children with certain profiles it may be the difference between staying on grade level or not, having meltdowns or not, ruined self esteem or not, school refusal down the line or not.

For "may benefit from" I can read a book on general topics about ASD children, listen to podcasts, chat on a forum like this one. Expecting clarity on what supports and settings your child needs is not outlandish. Providing this clarity is not unprofessional.

You yourself said that your child is broadly on level in kindergarten - maybe your child doesn't "require" very specific interventions in order to function at school. "May benefit" might fit. You seem to be generalizing your child's evaluation to an entire practice.

I have two child who have been tested for different conditions - one with significant needs and one with mild ADHD. For the first, I have had evaluations say that he needs very specific supports in order to function. For the second, I had many "may benefit" type of recommendations, which absolutely fit. Recommendations are individualized to your child. It sounds like you wanted strongly worded recommendations to convince the school. An evaluation is a reflection of what the professional thinks based on their assessment - not on what the parent wants.

+100. Some evaluators may be more likely to use the mandatory language - I’m guessing its the ones who are private pay. But a good professional would likely not say “require” except in very clear-cut cases. My other concern is neuropsychologists giving clinically poor recommendations because they are not in fact specialists in your child or the underlying condition. For example, recommending approaches to anxiety that make it worse (over accomodating). And a lot of their recommendations are canned based on what they assume are limitations especially wrt autism.

Our private eval used a mix of "should receive", "should include", "would benefit from", "requires" and "needs".

If you can, please share the name of the practice, please?

CAAT

We did not use CAAT, due to scheduling, but have seen their evals and think they are written so well! They give a good road map about how to think about and approach. Ours was more of a template and checklist that could have been an internet download.

To the previous comment on breakdown on trust with schools & parents, absolutely an issue, now we try to approach new teachers with building rapport first. We have seen many go on the defense and thus unable to help or even effectively communicate to us to be able to bring in the help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Kennedy Krieger?

Haven't used her but Dr. Alison Mostow at KKI was recommended to us.

.

“may benefit from” is more professionally accurate than “requires.”

I disagree. It's far more generic. A very big proportion of children "may benefit" from smaller classroom sizes and individualized instruction. But for children with certain profiles it may be the difference between staying on grade level or not, having meltdowns or not, ruined self esteem or not, school refusal down the line or not.

For "may benefit from" I can read a book on general topics about ASD children, listen to podcasts, chat on a forum like this one. Expecting clarity on what supports and settings your child needs is not outlandish. Providing this clarity is not unprofessional.

You yourself said that your child is broadly on level in kindergarten - maybe your child doesn't "require" very specific interventions in order to function at school. "May benefit" might fit. You seem to be generalizing your child's evaluation to an entire practice.

I have two child who have been tested for different conditions - one with significant needs and one with mild ADHD. For the first, I have had evaluations say that he needs very specific supports in order to function. For the second, I had many "may benefit" type of recommendations, which absolutely fit. Recommendations are individualized to your child. It sounds like you wanted strongly worded recommendations to convince the school. An evaluation is a reflection of what the professional thinks based on their assessment - not on what the parent wants.

+100. Some evaluators may be more likely to use the mandatory language - I’m guessing its the ones who are private pay. But a good professional would likely not say “require” except in very clear-cut cases. My other concern is neuropsychologists giving clinically poor recommendations because they are not in fact specialists in your child or the underlying condition. For example, recommending approaches to anxiety that make it worse (over accomodating). And a lot of their recommendations are canned based on what they assume are limitations especially wrt autism.

Our private eval used a mix of "should receive", "should include", "would benefit from", "requires" and "needs".

If you can, please share the name of the practice, please?

CAAT

We did not use CAAT, due to scheduling, but have seen their evals and think they are written so well! They give a good road map about how to think about and approach. Ours was more of a template and checklist that could have been an internet download.

To the previous comment on breakdown on trust with schools & parents, absolutely an issue, now we try to approach new teachers with building rapport first. We have seen many go on the defense and thus unable to help or even effectively communicate to us to be able to bring in the help.

PP here. I agree, we were very happy with it. I definitely did not get the impression anything was copy-pasted or based on a template. The recommendations are really tailored to our child.

[Anonymous]

IMO, copy and pasted recommendations are fine as long as they’re appropriate. My kid with ADHD has similar needs to other kids with ADHD - no need to reinvent the wheel. Each recommendation should be thoughtfully included, but I see no reason why each recommendation needs to be originally written for my kid’s specific report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO, copy and pasted recommendations are fine as long as they’re appropriate. My kid with ADHD has similar needs to other kids with ADHD - no need to reinvent the wheel. Each recommendation should be thoughtfully included, but I see no reason why each recommendation needs to be originally written for my kid’s specific report.

Well if there are evidence-based recommendations then sure. The problem is a lot are not evidence based and assume challenges your kid may not have. Maybe this is more true for autism than ADHD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO, copy and pasted recommendations are fine as long as they’re appropriate. My kid with ADHD has similar needs to other kids with ADHD - no need to reinvent the wheel. Each recommendation should be thoughtfully included, but I see no reason why each recommendation needs to be originally written for my kid’s specific report.

Well yeah I don't think anybody is looking for an evaluator to use completely original wording for every line of the report. That would start to get weird pretty quickly. I think most of us just want a report that is specific to our child meaning the recommendations selected have been thought through in terms of the child's specific strengths and challenges. Not just here's a bunch of things that might help a child with diagnosis X.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Kennedy Krieger?

They do a good enough job. The report was thorough. Testing done all in one day. Covered by insurance.

We used someone at Resnicks who no longer works there and we hated her. And yes hate is a strong word.

how is Resnick?

[Anonymous]

Jody Bleiberg=report was cut & pasted from another report. Horrible testing experience for DC. Too curt and only seemed interested in $$ and moving you on and out. No bueno.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, copy and pasted recommendations are fine as long as they’re appropriate. My kid with ADHD has similar needs to other kids with ADHD - no need to reinvent the wheel. Each recommendation should be thoughtfully included, but I see no reason why each recommendation needs to be originally written for my kid’s specific report.

Well yeah I don't think anybody is looking for an evaluator to use completely original wording for every line of the report. That would start to get weird pretty quickly. I think most of us just want a report that is specific to our child meaning the recommendations selected have been thought through in terms of the child's specific strengths and challenges. Not just here's a bunch of things that might help a child with diagnosis X.

I got better recommendations from our educational consultant who is a former special ed teacher than anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, copy and pasted recommendations are fine as long as they’re appropriate. My kid with ADHD has similar needs to other kids with ADHD - no need to reinvent the wheel. Each recommendation should be thoughtfully included, but I see no reason why each recommendation needs to be originally written for my kid’s specific report.

Well yeah I don't think anybody is looking for an evaluator to use completely original wording for every line of the report. That would start to get weird pretty quickly. I think most of us just want a report that is specific to our child meaning the recommendations selected have been thought through in terms of the child's specific strengths and challenges. Not just here's a bunch of things that might help a child with diagnosis X.

I got better recommendations from our educational consultant who is a former special ed teacher than anyone else.

Would you like to share who it was? Or is this just some bizarre brag?