The district's practice is to require Board approval for contracts in excess of $250,000, but the contract with Teach for America didn't have any district money associated with it. At most it would have amounted to about $100,000 (25 x $4,000). The contract did not require Board approval, so why did the Board vote on it?
The decision about whom to hire is a management decision, not a governance decision, and the Board should not be involved. The decision to open teacher hiring to un-certificated Teach for America corps members (they will be un-certificated on the day they apply and un-certificated on the day they are hired; the District must petition the OSPI for their conditional certification AFTER they are hired) did not require Board approval, so why did the Board vote on it?
The information that the District has agreed to share with Teach for America would have been available to them by request. They didn't need a contract to get it and the contract to share information would not need Board approval, so why did the Board vote on it?
There was no policy that was suspended or amended to allow the District to hire Teach for America corps members, so why did the Board vote on it?
There was no legitimate policy reason for the Board to vote on the Teach for America contract. It did not require Board approval at all. The superintendent could have moved forward on it without any Board approval - even without Board discussion. It could have been done quietly. I think the Board was asked to vote to approve the contract for Teach for America for only one reason: to create publicity for Teach for America.