WHY NEUROMAP EXISTS
A system born from the gap between assessment and real-world implementation.
NeuroMap Systems was developed by Liat Soresman after more than two decades working across assessment, SEN, international education and specialist learning support — repeatedly seeing valuable evidence fail to become one coordinated pathway.
Good assessment was not the end of the problem.
Across different roles, Liat encountered the same practical gap: a learner could have detailed reports, thoughtful recommendations and multiple adults trying to help — yet no single structure connecting the evidence, priorities, actions and review.
NeuroMap was created to address that gap. The aim is to preserve the depth of professional assessment while giving families and schools a clearer way to understand the whole pattern and carry it into everyday implementation.
This is why NeuroMap is not positioned as simply another educational psychology service. Professional assessment can be one input. The wider proposition is the profiling and implementation system that connects what is known to what happens next.
Founder-market fit
A multidisciplinary perspective built across the learner’s whole pathway.
Why the school perspective matters
Assessment findings only become useful when they can be applied to the learner’s actual educational environment. SENCO experience brings a practical lens on teacher workload, classroom constraints, curriculum demands, support plans and the need for strategies that can genuinely be implemented.
Why the multidisciplinary perspective matters
Learning difficulties rarely sit neatly in one box. Language, cognition, attainment, executive functioning, emotional responses, behaviour and context can interact. NeuroMap is designed to preserve that complexity while still creating a clear direction.
Turn accumulated professional insight into a repeatable framework.
NeuroMap is currently founder-led. The development opportunity is to continue structuring the method so that evidence capture, profiling, priority setting, implementation and review become increasingly consistent and transferable.
Technology can support the system without replacing professional judgement.
Future digital tools can help organise information, visualise patterns, coordinate implementation and track review — while the quality of educational decisions continues to depend on appropriate professional expertise and context.