Class record · SCWK · SSW

SCWK 8855

Clinical Practice with Children and Families: Assessment, Intervention, and Evidence-Based Practice · 18 instructors on record · 53 sections

How the curve score is built

66Teaching77 raw · 16th percentile of BC classes

+1Easiness adjustmenteasiness 81 · 50 raw workload · lighter than 66% of BC classes

67Curve scorethe teaching curve +1 for the workload · at most ±6 either way

Boston College's ratings are bunched at the top — the median instructor averages about 88 out of 100 on the raw scale, and 44% of them clear 90 — so a raw score cannot separate anybody. Every figure here is ranked against BC classes and that rank is re-expressed out of 100, which is what turns a raw 88 — the middle of the university — into a figure that says where somebody actually stands. On this scale 77 is the median, 84 the top quarter and 91 the top tenth. Workload is then an adjustment on top of that, worth nothing at all for an ordinary one. Lighter work than 66% of BC classes.

What the course score is made of

77BC evaluations53 records · weight ×1.0 · Spring 2022 – Spring 2026

—Student reviewsno reviews — does not contribute

—RateMyProfessorsno ratings — does not contribute

The class itself, averaged across everyone who taught it — who taught it is the board below.

How is this worked out?

That is what a student picking a section is actually choosing between: the board carries each instructor's own score for this class, and the score above is the class averaged across all of them.

What the challenge rank is made of

19thMore challenging than 19% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

84BC — “Intellectually Challenging”53 records · raw score out of 100

Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question. It is not a measure of difficulty, grading or workload.

How is this worked out?

Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question for this class only — students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it measures intellectual challenge and NOT grading, workload or quality. Almost every BC class scores high on it, which is why it is shown as a rank rather than a score.

What the workload rank is made of

34thMore work than 34% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

50BC — “Workload”53 records · raw score out of 100

One of Boston College's five workload bands, not a number of hours. Higher means more work, not worse.

How is this worked out?

Boston College reports workload for this class only as one of five bands, not as a number of hours, and it does not publish what the bands mean — so this site will not translate it into hours. Higher means more work, which is not the same as worse.

Required of Clinical Social Work students. An advanced clinical course intended to prepare students for effective practice with children, adolescents, and families. Building on foundation content, the course provides a comprehensive review of child and family development, reviews major theories and research literature concerning the evaluation and treatment of children and families, and examines how clinical social workers may effectively utilize evidence-based treatments to help youth and their families achieve their goals. Students will learn practice techniques of various evidence-based interventions.

The board

18 instructors · ranked on this class onlyCompare the top 3

Find an instructor among the 18Filters the rows below. Positions are always against the whole class, so a rank does not change when the list is narrowed.

Scores are real averages. The order also accounts for how many records back each one — the count is under every score — so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. 7 of the 18 rows carry a mark saying so.

Rank	Instructor	Curve	Easiness	Challenge
1	Erin LechterSocial Work	8493 raw · 8 records	79+1 to the score	29th
2	Jenna StraussSocial Work Provisional fewer records	8793 raw · 2 records	84+2 to the score	36th
3	Jennifer Roman-MartinSocial Work Provisional	8794 raw · 2 records	84+2 to the score	34th
4	Carolyn RomanoSocial Work	8493 raw · 3 records	76±0 to the score	42nd
5	Victoria TuckerSocial Work Provisional fewer records	8592 raw · 2 records	84+2 to the score	21st
6	Seth KleinmanSocial Work Provisional fewer records	9095 raw · 1 record	84+2 to the score	29th
7	Sharla RandazzoSocial Work	7989 raw · 5 records	81+1 to the score	48th
8	Elizabeth ChinSocial Work Provisional fewer records	8292 raw · 1 record	—	17th
9	Rebecca BrighamSocial Work	7587 raw · 5 records	78±0 to the score	40th
10	Mirna MejiaSocial Work Provisional	7383 raw · 2 records	84+2 to the score	14th
11	Erin LemireSocial Work Provisional	6070 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	6th
12	Gerelyn BaezSocial Work Provisional fewer records	6064 raw · 1 record	84+2 to the score	0th
13	Susan TohnSocial Work	7284 raw · 4 records	75±0 to the score	79th
14	Malaka MimsSocial Work Provisional	5466 raw · 1 record	58−5 to the score	0th
15	Felicia Rodney-OsbourneSocial Work Provisional fewer records	5137 raw · 1 record	84+2 to the score	1st
16	Jaclyn WhiteSocial Work Provisional fewer records	6064 raw · 2 records	84+2 to the score	1st
17	Natalie Sheehan DiasSocial Work	6472 raw · 4 records	82+1 to the score	3rd
18	Elisabeth SandoeSocial Work	6273 raw · 8 records	68−2 to the score	11th

All 18 instructors listed.

11 of 18 rows are marked provisional: fewer than 3 records stand behind the number. That is thin evidence, not a bad instructor — the record count is in every row.

How this board is built and ordered

Positions account for how many records stand behind each number, so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. Every score shown is the real average — only the ordering is adjusted. The comparison here is the class itself: a thin record is read against how this class was rated overall, not against the university.

Every instructor with an evaluation record for this class is on this board — it is not a top ten, and nothing is hidden behind a “show more”. Curve is the instructor's score for THIS class only, ranked against every instructor we hold and printed back out of 100, with the raw BC average underneath it; nothing on this board is an average across the other things they teach. Easiness is an adjustment on top of it, worth up to about ±6 — BC's workload item, ranked and turned over, so a lighter section gains and a heavier one loses, while an ordinary one changes nothing — and each row prints the adjustment, signed. The board is ordered on the same figure it prints, adjusted for how many records back it. Challenge is BC's “intellectually challenging” item shown as a rank against every class we hold; students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it is not a measure of difficulty or grading, and it is never marked better or worse.

The line

All 13 items · means across 53 records

Instructor4

Course3

Feedback3

Workload & Challengenot ratings

Bars are ranks, not raw scores. Nothing here is graded good or bad.

What each item asks

Explains Clearly: The instructor was effective at creating an understanding of difficult subject matter.
Available: The instructor was available for help outside of class.
Motivating: The instructor motivated me to do my best work.
Sparks Interest: The course stimulated my interest in the subject matter.
Organized: The course was well organized.
Clear Goals: The learning objectives for the course were clear.
Useful Later: What I learned is applicable beyond this course.
Assignments: Assignments and exams contributed to my learning.
Fast Feedback: I received feedback on my work in a timely manner.
Useful Feedback: The feedback I received on my work was meaningful.
Workload: How much work the course took outside class, on Boston College's five-band scale — the band boundaries are not published, so this is not a number of hours.
Challenge: The course was intellectually challenging.
Attendance: Attending class was necessary to do well in this course.

Why these numbers are curved

Both the number and the bar are the rank against every comparable record we hold, printed back out of 100. BC's questions all have a median around 4.5, so on the raw scale every cell here would read in the high eighties and every bar would be nearly full — thirteen numbers that tell you nothing. Each cell prints its raw BC figure and its percentile underneath, so nothing is hidden by the transform. Every bar is one ink colour — nothing here is graded green or red. The hatched bars are not ratings at all: a higher number on either describes a different course, not a better one.

Game log

53 sections · newest first

Instructor	Term	Sec	Instr	Course	Work
Jenna Strauss	Spring 2026	01	97	85	40
Mirna Mejia	Spring 2026	02	81	74	40
Mirna Mejia	Spring 2026	03	84	77	40
Jennifer Roman-Martin	Spring 2026	04	94	81	40
Gerelyn Baez	Spring 2026	05	64	60	40
Erin Lechter	Spring 2026	06	96	91	60
Erin Lemire	Spring 2026	08	70	68	60
Carolyn Romano	Spring 2026	09	91	85	60
Sharla Randazzo	Spring 2026	10	99	93	60
Rebecca Brigham	Spring 2026	11	93	91	60
Elisabeth Sandoe	Summer 2025	01	76	70	60
Jenna Strauss	Spring 2025	01	90	83	40
Jennifer Roman-Martin	Spring 2025	04	93	89	40
Erin Lechter	Spring 2025	06	92	83	40
Carolyn Romano	Spring 2025	08	100	90	60
Sharla Randazzo	Spring 2025	09	93	91	40
Rebecca Brigham	Spring 2025	10	80	82	40
Malaka Mims	Spring 2025	11	66	69	80
Elisabeth Sandoe	Summer 2024	01	91	89	80
Victoria Tucker	Spring 2024	01	97	84	40
Natalie Sheehan Dias	Spring 2024	02	70	71	40
Natalie Sheehan Dias	Spring 2024	03	81	73	40
Erin Lechter	Spring 2024	04	93	86	60
Jaclyn White	Spring 2024	05	71	74	40
Erin Lechter	Spring 2024	06	88	83	40

Showing the first 25.

How to read this board

Instructors are ranked on their record in this class only, never on their average across everything they teach. Scores are out of 100 — Boston College's 1–5 agreement scale, ×20, the way these numbers were printed for years. Workload is BC's own five-band figure, not a number of hours, and is shown as a rank. A dash means the question was not reported, and is never a zero.