Talk:David Coleman (educator)

Inappropriate educator category removed

An editor inappropriately applied the category "Educator" to the article. He has never been employed as a professional educator. That he is the "architect" of the national standards, the Core Curriculum, does not replace this absence in his resume.Gogue2 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

While I understand Coleman may have been a consultant when this page was published, he is not currently a consultant and hasn’t been one for some time. I understand that changing the category to "Educator" may not have been the right choice, so I offer “Education” as a fair alternative. This change would certainly improve the accuracy of this page. As noted by the existing content of this page, Coleman’s entire career has been focused on education (tutoring at Yale, his foundation of the Grow Network, his leadership at the College Board, and even his work at McKinsey). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/education/david-coleman-to-lead-college-board.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehwilcox (talk • contribs) 03:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Common Core

An editor attempted to remove the following, which deals with an essential part of education, which the Common Core has removed: These standards, among other things, eschew literature and arts and substitute technical and vocational reading for most of the scholastic reading curriculum. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-chura/what-common-core-curricul_b_3131099.html>Gogue2 (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, just an IP address, not a regular Wikipedia account holder is removing material, the same referenced above. The person is providing no valid reason for why the information should be removed. The person needs to engage on the Talk page. Otherwise, these editors are trying to make the article a POV piece.Gogue2 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

More POV language not belonging in an encyclopedia: "achieve the promise of the Common Core State Standards."Gogue2 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted the language about Common Core and the reference to the HuffPo piece. You noted that it was factual material but in my view it's opinion-based. One could find just as many articles for the Common Core as against it. That doesn't make it factual. Better to just leave that out. Also removed the reference to the terms of the acquision between Grow Network and McGraw Hill. That's irrelevant to this entry on David Coleman and would be more appropriate for an entry about either one of those entities. However, I agree with your POV edits.ndenise (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fabrication of Common Core creation process, deceptive reference to article

An editor put this in a sentence about the Common Core: ", a process that drew on the input of states, higher education, business leaders, researchers from across the country and a teacher " The editor wrote this in connection with this article: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2009/07/national_standards_process_ign.html However, nowhere in this article does this information appear. Interesting that so many of the contributors to this article are working on IP addresses.Gogue2 (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The history for this was on the Coleman "educator" page which has been removed since the change back to "consultant" (which I agree with, for the reasons quoted by Stotsky below), so you cannot see that the original statement which was edited had said that "teachers" were among those involved in writing the Common Core standards. In fact, there were no teachers in the work groups that developed the standards. On the feedback committees, which served in advisory capacities only, there were no English teachers. There was only one teacher involved, a middle school Math teacher who was on the Math feedback committee. The HuffPost article that was cited described this and a commenter there provided lists of the names, titles and affiliations of members of the working/development groups and feedback committees. This has all been confirmed by Sandra Stotsky, who served on the Common Core Validation Committee, in her testimony to several state legislatures, including in Indiana. Regarding the writing of the English Language Arts (ELA) standards, she stated, "...Nor were the chief writers of Common Core’s ELA standards qualified to write K-12 ELA standards and determine college readiness. Neither has ever taught in K-12 or in higher education." <http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/01/Stotsky-Invited-Testimony-for-a-Hearing-on-Common-Core-in-Indiana.pdf> The make up of the people who developed the Common Core is fact, not "fabrication" or "deceptive." Coleman, who was on the ELA development committee, is not a trained, experienced K-20 educator and neither were the others who wrote those standards. Consequently, the sentence was changed from "teachers" to "a teacher" in reference to the middle school Math teacher on the Math feedback committee. Professor_wise (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional white-washing

The sale of the Grow Network to McGraw Hill was in July 2004 not 2005 as earlier reported. By the McGraw Hill's own statement: "The terms of the acquisition were not disclosed." A newly established editor "Ndenise" has removed this fact from the article. This is not opinion based material. It's from the company's own site.Gogue2 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is material from the site, yes. That's undisputed. However it doesn't belong in this entry. It is irrelevant. It adds nothing to the section in which it is included. Being a newly established editor does not change that fact. ndenise (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing factual. This is a fact from MGH: "The terms of the acquisition were not disclosed." Gogue2 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This may be factual, but doesn't make sense to include in a post about an individual. The terms of acquisition were agreed upon by business entities - McGraw Hill and Grow Network - and are outside the scope of relevance for an entry about David Coleman. Better to include in an entry about either of those business entities.Knl117 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The original page restored

The subject has never been an educator. He has only worked as a consultant. Moving was unauthorized.Gogue2 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Until editors can produce proof otherwise, he is a consultant. He has never worked as an educator, teacher or professor. Gogue2 (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the subject is not an educator. However there's probably a better classification for this entry that also serves to distinguish the subject in the disambiguation. The subject is not a consultant and has not been one for quite some time. Subject is president of the College Board. That's not a consulting position. Would like to consider alternatives that make this a better and more accurate entry. ndenise (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Good that we might be moving to a consensus. Executive strikes as too bland. Consultant isn't too lowly. It can range from small part-timer, to someone of high influence. So, it seems as more inclusive, encompassing.Gogue2 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Consultant doesn't seem appropriate to me. The subject hasn't been a consultant in some time and I don't think it accurately represents his current position or the work he's done at and before the College Board. A few suggestions: Why not simply "College Board President?" That'd certainly distinguish from other David Colemans in the disambiguation. If that's too specific how about "Nonprofit Leader" or "Education Professional"? ndenise (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-profit leader is too POV and lengthy. College Board president is too lengthy. Let's keep it as consultant. He was a consultant in his creating the English Common Core. This gets to what his career has been about. Education professional serves to restore the myth first attempted here that he is or has been an educator. Simply because he guides education does not make him an educator.Gogue2 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that "College Board President" is the most appropriate page title considering it's David Coleman's current professional role? Further, he began his career in education (working as a tutor) and not as a consultant, so I don't see how that title is anymore appropriate than College Board President. Please consider. Knl117 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

While I understand Coleman may have been a consultant when this page was published, he is not currently a consultant and hasn’t been one for some time. I understand that changing the category to "Educator" may not have been the right choice, so I offer “Education” as a fair alternative. This change would certainly improve the accuracy of this page. As noted by the existing content of this page, Coleman’s entire career has been focused on education (tutoring at Yale, his foundation of the Grow Network, his leadership at the College Board, and even his work at McKinsey). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/education/david-coleman-to-lead-college-board.html (talk 03:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is very interesting that some of the most partisan commenters here versus disclosing certain parts of Coleman's history are actually not editing the article. Are they working under other names or are they using IP addresses? Just what is the opposition to divulging facts on Coleman?Gogue2 (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill sales terms undisclosed

An editor has removed "The terms of the acquisition were not disclosed." without due explanation. Coleman sold his Grow Network to McGraw-Hill in July 19, 2004 http://investor.mhfi.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=96562&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=592486&highlight= A pertinent aspect of his professional life. It warrants remaining.Gogue2 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference notes

The reference notes are a mess. 173.52.250.102 (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of all my edits

All my revisions were just reverted because in my last one, I included a link to vimeo, which I didn't know was not allowed. I am going to revert to my original changes, which I think were a decided improvement, and take out only the disallowed vimeo link, which is what I think was intended. 173.52.250.102 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholars

Why was David Coleman deleted from list of Rhodes Scholars? Wasn't he one? Does one have to be a current Rhodes Scholar to be listed? What gives? 173.77.11.127 (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

David Coleman is in the Category:American Rhodes Scholars so he was removed from the Category:Rhodes Scholars because the Category:American Rhodes Scholars is included in Category:Rhodes Scholars Wayne Jayes 20:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for explanation. You can do it in the edit summary, too, you know. 173.77.11.127 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposing a new draft for The Common Core

Hello. I've been asked by the College Board, which David Coleman is the president of, to make some suggestions for improving this article. My plan is not to make any edits to the article myself, but to post changes to the Talk page for others to review. If there is consensus about the changes, I'd ask that another editor update the article.

My first concern with this article is the The Common Core section. Currently, the section is more about the standards themselves than David Coleman. The majority of the sources used in the section don't even mention Coleman. In addition, some of the details under the Education and early career heading could be moved, so that all information related to the Common Core is kept together and organized chronologically under the The Common Core heading. To work through these issues, I've put together a revised draft based on secondary sources that mention Coleman's work with the Common Core. Editors can review it here:

• User:Heatherer/David_Coleman_Common_Core

My aim with this draft was to keep the focus clearly and tightly on the contributions of Coleman to the development and implementation of the Common Core standards. With this in mind, I've removed the following details, which are just about the Common Core and not David Coleman:

• The Common Core State Standards aim to prepare students for college and careers by identifying the skills students should learn from kindergarten through high school.
• Coleman's friend and Student Achievement Partners co-founder Jason Zimba was a leader on the Mathematics writing team.
• The Common Core has created a national market for book publishers and test developers. Beginning in the 2014 to 2015 school year, U.S. primary and high schools will begin using standardized exams closely aligned with the new Common Core's standards.

If what I'm proposing seems like an improvement, I'd like to work with other editors to have it placed in the article. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts and feedback. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Heatherer, I made some changes to the portion on Common Core, to try and balance them out per WP:NPOV. There are two main factors at play here. First of all, this article is about David Coleman, and thus should focus on material relevant to that WP:BLP, in a way that is fair and 100% WP:NPOV-compliant. Second of all, we have a main article about Common Core, which should focus on material relevant to *that* controversial political topic. That said, it is wrong to write the subsection David Coleman#The Common Core as if there was no controversy. Hence, I've added in some sentences that point out how Common Core is controversial, and linked to the appropriate subsections of that main article, which explains the controversy. Along the same lines, and for the same reasons, this WP:BLP article on Coleman should not downplay the good things that the WP:RS have said about Common Core ... but of course, since the topic is Coleman, the explanation of Common Core in *this* article should be as minimal as possible, and should direct the readership to the main article Common Core where they can find out the details. Finally, it is worth noting that specific kinds of details -- ones specific to Coleman's role in creating and promoting Common Core -- are probably better in this article, than in the main one. The Common Core article may not mention Zimba and Grow Net, to the same extent that they are mentioned here in the David Coleman article, because the connection between Coleman/Zimba/GrowNet is much closer than the connection between CommonCore/Zimba/GrowNet ... does that make sense? In any case, please try to keep an eye on this page. It looks like, from the edit-history and the article-talkpage, it has become a problem in the past, with editors using this WP:BLP page about David Coleman to write pro-common-core and anti-common-core sentiments (sometimes sourced and sometimes not), which is NOT THE RIGHT PLACE, since the discussion of Common Core (pro and anti per reflecting and summarizing what the reliable sources say) should happen over at Common Core, not here in David Coleman#Common Core. I will look over your draft-material, and take a stab at merging it into this article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for taking a look, 75.108! I appreciate the thoughtful response. I completely agree with your assessment of the section and what it should (and should not) be in the context of a biography. I tried to keep those things in mind while drafting and I hope it comes across in what I've put together. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions about the draft as you review. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

year of birth

NYT says he was 42 in May'12,[1] which makes him born in 1969 or 1970. Both have been in the article, neither with cites. We can say "born in 1969 or 1970" per WP:CALC, but since we have User:Heatherer available, maybe she can just tell us the answer. Can somebody say with exactness, when David Coleman was born? Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know the answer, but I'll ask. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, appreciate it. While you are at it, years of graduation are also typical (university -- no need for the elementary school stuff unless Coleman just happens to want it in there... because he is in the education-field, plenty of the WP:RS mention his PS41 years, so I guess please ask him for those date-spans). Same sort of question, for the date-spans when he worked at GrowNet, CollegeBoard, and other jobs mentioned in the article. Dates like these are usually just permitted at face value, per WP:ABOUTSELF, though it helps if we have *some* kind of URL to point at (can be his bio-page at work or even a personal blog/homepage) which is somewhat 'official' albeit not WP:RS in the normal sense. Referring to a URL of some kind is not technically necessary, but plenty of wikipedians will delete uncited details like that unless there is a note/ref attached. By contrast, though, note that the fact of graduation itself "Coleman has a degree for Oxford in FieldOfInquiryGoesHere" technically speaking *must* be cited, and preferably to WP:RS that mentioned it, because it's not just Coleman saying something about himself "I was at Oxford from 1955 through 1960" or whatever, it is a statement about the university granting a diploma, aka "I got degree XYZ from university ABC". Similarly, we can take Coleman at his word when he says something like "I founded GrowNet in 1977" or whatever, which is an about-self-statement per WP:ABOUTSELF, but we need a cite for his getting hired by the College Board since he is NOT the founder and they ARE a separate independent entity. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi again! Coleman was born in 1969. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The College Board

Hi all. Starting a new thread to note that I will no longer be working on this article and will be stepping back from any Talk page discussions for the time being. I also wanted to post my revised draft for The College Board section as an aid to other editors looking to improve the entry. My draft expands on the initiatives Coleman had led as president. You can review it here:

• User:Heatherer/David_Coleman_The_College_Board

I'm leaving my last message regarding the Common Core section open, since I believe there are useful suggestions and sources that can be drawn on. While I was not able to have that draft placed while actively working on this, there does seem to be renewed interest in this article (see my Talk page here) and my hope is that some positive changes are forthcoming. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've declined the two outstanding edit requests on this page. Discussion started, but ceased when User:Heatherer stated they have stepped away from editing this article. Some changes were made to the section as a result of the edit request. There's no problem with restarting the request at a later date, if it's still wanted, of course.  —SMALLJIM  14:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David Coleman.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)