NeuroMe
Unclaimed Business
|1.5|2 Reviews (last 12 months)|This business does not respond to reviews
NeuroMe
Unclaimed Business
|1.5
2 Reviews (last 12 months)
Does not respond to reviews
Performance(last 12 months):
NPS Score
-100Unlikely
NPS Score
-100
Recommended: Unlikely
Review Distribution
1.5|2 Reviews
Apr '26 - Aug '26
Recent reviews (2)
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your ExperienceJH
Joanne H
1 reviews | Active since Nov 2009
9 May 2026, 10:14
Homeschool Parents: NeuroMe not recommended
Complaint Regarding NeuroMe’s Practical Implementation, Communication, and Learner Support NeuroMe initially presented itself as a highly promising homeschooling option. Its marketing promoted “low-pressure exams,” “built-in accommodations,” “personalised learning,” “flexibility,” and “constant support” — all of which strongly appealed to families seeking a genuinely supportive educational environment, particularly for neurodiverse learners. However, our practical experience has raised serious concerns regarding the gap between what was communicated and what has been implemented. As a homeschooling parent, one of the main reasons for choosing homeschooling is to have greater flexibility, increased parental oversight, and more control over a child’s educational journey. Unfortunately, our experience with NeuroMe has often felt like the opposite. Despite previously using a far more academically demanding and traditional provider for two years, we experienced significantly more flexibility, planning freedom, and parental control there than we currently do. Key concerns include: • Reduced parental control and flexibility compared to what was expected from a homeschooling provider. • Work and content being released in stages, making forward planning difficult for families who require structure, travel flexibility, or customised pacing. I requested a termly timetable, with no response. • Policies and expectations changing repeatedly, at times close to assessments and exams, creating unnecessary stress and uncer*****y. • Practical accommodations for learners requiring prompting, reader/scribe support, or supervised submissions not consistently aligning with expectations created. We could just as well stay in the mainstream if we knew this! • Communication concerns, where issues raised did not always result in the level of clarity, collaboration, or practical support reasonably expected. • Delayed marking, delayed summaries, and limited printable resources creating additional anxiety for both learners and parents. A particularly significant concern has been the lack of sufficient printed materials and printable assessments. I specifically requested: • More printable learning materials • Printable assessments that learners can physically complete themselves before submission as my child is impulsive (indicated in scholastic report as well) and need more prompting. For many younger learners, neurodiverse learners, or children still developing typing skills, timed digital assessments create additional barriers that are unrelated to the child’s actual knowledge. A child who is still new to typing should not face increased anxiety simply because they cannot type quickly enough within a timed environment. This can shift the focus from assessing knowledge to assessing typing ability under pressure, which may be inappropriate for certain learners. Printable or fillable assessments that can first be completed comfortably by the learner would significantly reduce unnecessary anxiety and better support genuine academic assessment. For families choosing homeschooling to reduce stress and increase meaningful educational flexibility, these issues are deeply concerning. This complaint is shared not to discourage innovation, but to formally highlight serious concerns around: • Marketing versus lived reality • Policy consistency • Communication standards • Practical accommodation implementation • Parent control and tutor support (many of us have tutors who assist and need to be able to communicate as well) • Learner anxiety • Accessibility for children with different developmental and educational needs Homeschooling should provide families with greater freedom, support, and adaptability — not less. I strongly encourage NeuroMe to carefully review these concerns and align its practical implementation more closely with the expectations created through its public messaging, particularly when serving vulnerable and neurodiverse learners. I strongly encourage prospective parents to proceed with caution, ask detailed questions, compare providers carefully, and ensure that practical implementation genuinely matches marketing promises before enrolling. I also encourage current parents experiencing similar concerns not to remain silent. Constructive, honest feedback is essential to protect families, improve systems, and ensure children receive the support they were promised. Parents make deeply important educational decisions based on trust, transparency, and the wellbeing of their children. When serious concerns arise, open discussion and accountability matter. For the sake of future families, current learners, and especially vulnerable children, these concerns deserve to be voiced clearly rather than quietly accepted.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)JH
Joanne H
1 reviews | Active since Nov 2009
9 May 2026, 10:14
Homeschool Parents: NeuroMe not recommended
Complaint Regarding NeuroMe’s Practical Implementation, Communication, and Learner Support NeuroMe initially presented itself as a highly promising homeschooling option. Its marketing promoted “low-pressure exams,” “built-in accommodations,” “personalised learning,” “flexibility,” and “constant support” — all of which strongly appealed to families seeking a genuinely supportive educational environment, particularly for neurodiverse learners. However, our practical experience has raised serious concerns regarding the gap between what was communicated and what has been implemented. As a homeschooling parent, one of the main reasons for choosing homeschooling is to have greater flexibility, increased parental oversight, and more control over a child’s educational journey. Unfortunately, our experience with NeuroMe has often felt like the opposite. Despite previously using a far more academically demanding and traditional provider for two years, we experienced significantly more flexibility, planning freedom, and parental control there than we currently do. Key concerns include: • Reduced parental control and flexibility compared to what was expected from a homeschooling provider. • Work and content being released in stages, making forward planning difficult for families who require structure, travel flexibility, or customised pacing. I requested a termly timetable, with no response. • Policies and expectations changing repeatedly, at times close to assessments and exams, creating unnecessary stress and uncer*****y. • Practical accommodations for learners requiring prompting, reader/scribe support, or supervised submissions not consistently aligning with expectations created. We could just as well stay in the mainstream if we knew this! • Communication concerns, where issues raised did not always result in the level of clarity, collaboration, or practical support reasonably expected. • Delayed marking, delayed summaries, and limited printable resources creating additional anxiety for both learners and parents. A particularly significant concern has been the lack of sufficient printed materials and printable assessments. I specifically requested: • More printable learning materials • Printable assessments that learners can physically complete themselves before submission as my child is impulsive (indicated in scholastic report as well) and need more prompting. For many younger learners, neurodiverse learners, or children still developing typing skills, timed digital assessments create additional barriers that are unrelated to the child’s actual knowledge. A child who is still new to typing should not face increased anxiety simply because they cannot type quickly enough within a timed environment. This can shift the focus from assessing knowledge to assessing typing ability under pressure, which may be inappropriate for certain learners. Printable or fillable assessments that can first be completed comfortably by the learner would significantly reduce unnecessary anxiety and better support genuine academic assessment. For families choosing homeschooling to reduce stress and increase meaningful educational flexibility, these issues are deeply concerning. This complaint is shared not to discourage innovation, but to formally highlight serious concerns around: • Marketing versus lived reality • Policy consistency • Communication standards • Practical accommodation implementation • Parent control and tutor support (many of us have tutors who assist and need to be able to communicate as well) • Learner anxiety • Accessibility for children with different developmental and educational needs Homeschooling should provide families with greater freedom, support, and adaptability — not less. I strongly encourage NeuroMe to carefully review these concerns and align its practical implementation more closely with the expectations created through its public messaging, particularly when serving vulnerable and neurodiverse learners. I strongly encourage prospective parents to proceed with caution, ask detailed questions, compare providers carefully, and ensure that practical implementation genuinely matches marketing promises before enrolling. I also encourage current parents experiencing similar concerns not to remain silent. Constructive, honest feedback is essential to protect families, improve systems, and ensure children receive the support they were promised. Parents make deeply important educational decisions based on trust, transparency, and the wellbeing of their children. When serious concerns arise, open discussion and accountability matter. For the sake of future families, current learners, and especially vulnerable children, these concerns deserve to be voiced clearly rather than quietly accepted.
0
Replies (0)KD
Karin D
1 reviews | Active since Oct 2022
20 Apr 2026, 14:41
Does no deliver what it says
After 3 months of using the online educational platform for neurodivergent children, I am deeply disappointed at the difference in what the platform markets and what you actually get. Firstly, the standard of the work on the platform is below par. ADHD children are not mentally challenged, but simply lack focus! In fact, most neurodivergent children have an above IQ. To give them work that is so easy and non-challenging actually results in a learner who is so bored that they under achieve. It creates the opposite affect because there is no challenge. Secondly, the amount of wok given is way too little. If work is divided into 10 days, there is not enough to keep them busy more than 2 hours per day. Not only does this create boredom, long term this produces children that will not have the capacity to take on more work loads when required at tertiary education level. Furthermore, when work is submitted online (not the pdf extra work), there is no way of revisiting the work to see what the child has struggled with. The system does not allow a repeat of work until the child has mastered that concept before allowing the child to move on. So the claim of 'full curriculum access' is not true. Since there is no monitoring or expert feedback from teachers as claimed, it means that you only find out about the child's struggles 3 months later when reports are given! I also fail to understand why reports are only submitted the following term - it seems to be a deliberate ploy to force a parent to pay an additional month just to get the feedback. The marketing reflects 'detailed feedback'. This is simply not been our experience. On receipt of our child's report, there were no comments/suggestions. No teacher reached out to us, in spite of my child having the worst report ever. There is also no direct contact number available between parent and teacher. There are no printable summaries of work with each new section so that a child is able to have a file where they can revisit and study the principles, especially the parts where they struggled or need extra time. As far as the claim of weekly socials to nurture connections and bond - this is not true. These groups are simply oral/mondeling sessions where a child is given a topic to speak about. There is no social interaction between the children. Invariably, if one child dominates the conversation and time (and this is not regulated by the teacher), it is a waste of time for the other children present. What the children really need is time to chat with ONE ANOTHER and given the opportunity to further connect with each other on a safe platform. There are also way too may children in a given time slot for it to be feasible that each child would get a turn to speak. Focus should be on smaller groups at various time slots in the week - maximum 10 children per group and with teacher supervision in the background. In conclusion, I think this platform is a great idea in itself. However, it needs improvement to truly offer all neurodivergent child (not just high functioning autism) a successful long-term learning experience.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)KD
Karin D
1 reviews | Active since Oct 2022
20 Apr 2026, 14:41
Does no deliver what it says
After 3 months of using the online educational platform for neurodivergent children, I am deeply disappointed at the difference in what the platform markets and what you actually get. Firstly, the standard of the work on the platform is below par. ADHD children are not mentally challenged, but simply lack focus! In fact, most neurodivergent children have an above IQ. To give them work that is so easy and non-challenging actually results in a learner who is so bored that they under achieve. It creates the opposite affect because there is no challenge. Secondly, the amount of wok given is way too little. If work is divided into 10 days, there is not enough to keep them busy more than 2 hours per day. Not only does this create boredom, long term this produces children that will not have the capacity to take on more work loads when required at tertiary education level. Furthermore, when work is submitted online (not the pdf extra work), there is no way of revisiting the work to see what the child has struggled with. The system does not allow a repeat of work until the child has mastered that concept before allowing the child to move on. So the claim of 'full curriculum access' is not true. Since there is no monitoring or expert feedback from teachers as claimed, it means that you only find out about the child's struggles 3 months later when reports are given! I also fail to understand why reports are only submitted the following term - it seems to be a deliberate ploy to force a parent to pay an additional month just to get the feedback. The marketing reflects 'detailed feedback'. This is simply not been our experience. On receipt of our child's report, there were no comments/suggestions. No teacher reached out to us, in spite of my child having the worst report ever. There is also no direct contact number available between parent and teacher. There are no printable summaries of work with each new section so that a child is able to have a file where they can revisit and study the principles, especially the parts where they struggled or need extra time. As far as the claim of weekly socials to nurture connections and bond - this is not true. These groups are simply oral/mondeling sessions where a child is given a topic to speak about. There is no social interaction between the children. Invariably, if one child dominates the conversation and time (and this is not regulated by the teacher), it is a waste of time for the other children present. What the children really need is time to chat with ONE ANOTHER and given the opportunity to further connect with each other on a safe platform. There are also way too may children in a given time slot for it to be feasible that each child would get a turn to speak. Focus should be on smaller groups at various time slots in the week - maximum 10 children per group and with teacher supervision in the background. In conclusion, I think this platform is a great idea in itself. However, it needs improvement to truly offer all neurodivergent child (not just high functioning autism) a successful long-term learning experience.
0
Replies (0)