Millions for a Training Program. Zero Proof It Helped Students.

Former DCPS superintendent admits guilt to pay-to-play, unanswered questions surrounding contract with Relay Graduate School of Education and DC's leadership still refuse to confront scandal.

Washington, D.C. residents, tax payers and voters deserve to know a basic truth about their public schools: Did the millions spent on Relay training help children learn or not? Who was the system really serving?

For years, beginning in 2017, District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) poured taxpayer dollars into contracts with Relay Graduate School of Education(Relay), a private organization providing leadership training and professional development for principals and teachers. Programs such as the Instructional Leadership Development Program promised stronger instruction, better leadership, and improved classroom performance.

Yet after years of spending and sweeping implementation, there is still no publicly presented evidence showing that Relay training improved academic outcomes for D.C. students.

No district report ties the program to improved reading or math proficiency. No independent evaluation demonstrates gains in standardized test scores or student growth attributable to Relay. No cost-benefit analysis explains why millions were directed to this vendor instead of classrooms themselves.

The central question remains unanswered: Where is the proof that students benefited?

Relay’s Controversial Practices Were Intentional

Relay Graduate School of Education built its brand exporting a harsh “no excuses” discipline regime that critics say militarizes Black classrooms, swapping culturally responsive teaching for dehumanizing micromanagement and forced obedience.

In Washington, DC, Black educators and scholars blast Relay’s scripted “Teach Like a Champion” playbook—silent, military-style hallway marches, barked commands, and instant-compliance drills—as a “pedagogy of poverty” that treats low-income Black students like inmates to control, not children whose culture and community wisdom matter.

Education historian and former assistant secretary of education Diane Ravitch and others go further, calling Relay a “no excuses” trade school for test-prep and behavioral control that would never fly in affluent white suburbs—condemning its model as racist, assimilationist, and a direct feed into the school-to-prison pipeline for Black and Brown kids.

A Multi-Million Dollar Experiment Without Evidence

DCPS contract with Relay has funded leadership training programs for teachers, principals and instructional leaders across the District. Participation numbers and program completion statistics have been highlighted in official communications.

But participation is not performance.

Professional development initiatives are justified when they produce measurable improvements for students. Yet the public has never been presented with clear evidence linking Relay training to improved reading proficiency, math outcomes, or student growth metrics within DCPS.

In a school system where academic achievement gaps remain among the nation’s widest, spending millions without demonstrated results raises serious concerns about fiscal responsibility and educational priorities.

The mayor, chancellor, and DC Office of State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) proudly promote high-impact tutoring, but say nothing about Relay.

An Ethics Investigation Shakes the School System

The lack of academic evidence is only one part of the story.

In 2025, the District of Columbia Board of Ethics and Government Accountability (BEGA) concluded an investigation into the relationship between DCPS leadership and Relay. According to the board’s findings, then–superintendent Lewis D. Ferebee admitted to 25 ethics violations connected to his relationship with the organization.

The investigation found that he accepted approximately $170,000 in compensation from Relay while the organization maintained business relationships with the school system he led.

In any major public institution—particularly one responsible for educating tens of thousands of children—such findings would normally trigger sweeping scrutiny and reform.

Instead, the public response has been remarkably muted.

Allegations of Pressure on School Leaders

Alongside the ethics findings came the admittance of principals coerced into purchasing Relay services for their schools.

For school leaders operating under tight budgets, particularly those in high-poverty communities, such pressure would mean diverting scarce resources away from classroom needs and into vendor contracts.

This raises troubling questions about equity. Schools in Wards 7 and 8 serve predominantly Black and low-income students and rely heavily on Title I funding intended to support children facing the greatest educational barriers.

If those funds were redirected toward programs without demonstrated academic benefit, the consequences fall on the very students the system claims to prioritize.

Outcome: Thousands of elementary children harmed by intentional corruption.

The Price Paid by Whistleblowers

Yet, another disturbing aspect of this story is what happened to the educators who tried to raise alarms.

In 2020, two whistleblowers inside the school system came forward with concerns about the relationship between DCPS leadership and Relay. Instead of being protected, they paid an extraordinary personal and professional price.They lost their careers.They faced physical threats.They endured emotional trauma.They suffered severe financial hardship.

These educators stepped forward because they believed accountability in public education matters. Their treatment by the Bowser administration supports the mayor’s pervasive culture of fear and retaliation.

The Deafening Silence from City Leadership

Despite the seriousness of the ethics findings, the unresolved questions surrounding Relay contracts, the harm to whistleblowers, and especially the children—the response from Washington’s leadership has been strikingly quiet.

Muriel Bowser’s administration has offered little public explanation about the ethics violations, the procurement decisions behind Relay contracts, or the absence of evidence linking those contracts to improved student outcomes.

Members of the D.C. Council—responsible for oversight of public spending—have totally avoided sustained public examination of the issue. The city’s local media outlets have also turned away their attention to a story that intersects ethics, education policy, and the welfare of thousands of children.

Silence, in this context, does not reassure the public. It raises deeper concerns.

Questions That Still Demand Answers

Washington residents deserve transparency about how public education dollars are spent and whether those investments help students succeed.

Several basic questions remain unanswered:

• Where is the evidence that Relay training improved student learning in DCPS?

• Why were millions committed without a transparent independent evaluation?

• Were principals pressured to purchase Relay services using school budgets?

• What safeguards existed to prevent conflicts of interest in vendor relationships?

• And what is the full cumulative amount of taxpayer money paid to Relay?

Until those questions are addressed openly and honestly, the controversy surrounding these contracts will continue to cast a shadow over the District’s education leadership.

Accountability Is Not Optional

Public education depends on trust.

Parents trust that decisions made by school leaders prioritize the well-being and learning of our children. Taxpayers and voters trust that public funds are spent responsibly. Educators trust that raising ethical concerns will not end their careers.

When that trust is broken, silence only deepens the damage.

The real victims of inaction are not political leaders or vendors. They are the thousands of elementary students whose education was supposed to come first—and the courageous educators who risked everything to speak the truth.

DC residents must decide whether transparency and accountability matters.

Because in public education, silence is not neutrality. Silence is complicity.