The Ed. Dept.'s Civil Rights and Special Ed. Offices Are Relocating. Here’s What It Means

The move represents another step in the administration’s push to shrink the agency

Last week, the Trump administration issued controversial new interagency agreements moving the office for civil rights and the office overseeing special education out of the Department of Education. There’ve been a lot of questions about what this all means in practice. Well, few are better positioned to answer them than Lindsay Fryer, president of Lodestone DC, who’s worked on both the House and Senate education committees and was the Senate’s lead negotiator on the Every Student Succeeds Act. I reached out to get Lindsay’s take on what to make of these changes. Here’s what she had to say.
—Rick

Rick: Lindsay, the Department of Education recently issued a new batch of interagency agreements (IAAs) regarding the office for civil rights and special education. We’ve seen a number of these over the past year, of course, but can you explain just what these agreements are?

Lindsay: These are agreements between federal agencies to share personnel, expertise, or operational support. They’ve been used for decades when one agency needs help carrying out a particular function or wants to tap expertise that exists elsewhere in the government. What’s different here is the scale and visibility of the agreements. The Trump administration is using them to shift substantial portions of day-to-day work on certain education programs to other agencies while keeping the formal legal authority for the programs at the U.S. Department of Education. That has naturally attracted attention because education programs have traditionally been administered within the Education Department itself. It’s also worth noting that these are administrative arrangements, not changes in law, which means they can be undone by a future administration.

Rick: Some readers might wonder, what does it mean to have political control in the Education Department if the work has moved elsewhere. Can you explain?

Lindsay: Congress assigns legal authority to specific agencies through statute. The executive branch cannot transfer that authority to a different department without congressional approval. But the executive branch does have flexibility in how the underlying work is performed. That’s why these agreements are structured the way they are. They can’t eliminate the department’s statutory responsibilities, but they can change who performs the work, where staff are located, and how decisions are implemented. The operational details—like how complaints and casework will actually be divided day to day—are still being worked out, but the bottom line is that Education Department officials are legally required to retain authority over these programs, even after they’ve moved to other agencies. How that will work in practice is the subject of ongoing coordination between the department and the other agencies involved in these agreements.

Rick: Two of the biggest moves are the office for civil rights heading to the Department of Justice and the special education office heading to the Department of Health and Human Services. What practical changes might result?

Lindsay: The biggest immediate impact is on staffing and operations rather than on the underlying programs themselves. Some Education Department employees may relocate to the agency to which their program is being “moved,” and staff at the receiving agencies may work under different management structures or take on new responsibilities. Funding is a little more complicated. Congress will still appropriate money for the programs to the Education Department—even if the grants are administered at the receiving agency. For schools, districts, and families, the day-to-day experience will likely not look dramatically different at first. The real question is whether these new arrangements ultimately affect response times, technical assistance, investigations, or the consistency of federal oversight.

Rick: How rapidly will these changes take place?

Lindsay: The agreements technically take effect immediately, but the changes are unlikely to happen all at once. The federal government has to move staff, systems, contracts, and grants from one agency to another. In fact, the administration has already indicated that current-year special education grants will continue running through the Education Department before future grants move to HHS. My expectation is that most schools and states will see relatively little change this summer or fall, with more meaningful operational shifts emerging over the next year.

Rick: What is the administration’s thinking in making these moves?

Lindsay: The administration appears to be pursuing two related goals. First, it wants to reduce the size and operational footprint of the Education Department without waiting for Congress to formally eliminate it. Second, administration officials argue that some Education Department functions fit better elsewhere. For example, they view civil rights enforcement as closely aligned with DOJ’s mission and some disability-related responsibilities as overlapping with the expertise housed at HHS. Whether one agrees with that reasoning is a separate question, but it’s important to understand that the administration sees these interagency agreements as part of a broader effort to rethink where federal education responsibilities should reside.

Rick: Obviously, there’s a lot of strong emotions and hyperbole on both sides. Stepping back, how big of a deal are these moves?

Lindsay: The honest answer is that it depends on the time frame. In the short term, these agreements are more significant administratively than substantively. The laws haven’t changed. Students’ rights haven’t changed. Schools are still subject to the same federal requirements. That said, I don’t think they’re trivial. They represent a meaningful shift in how the federal government organizes education responsibilities. Over time, organizational changes can influence priorities, enforcement approaches, and institutional culture. Even if the legal authority remains the same, who is doing the work—and how it is done—matters. So, I would caution against both extremes: These moves are neither the end of federal education oversight nor a purely symbolic exercise. They are important structural changes whose long-term impact will hinge on implementation.

Rick: What are some examples of what we should expect to change or not change as a result of these moves?

Lindsay: The most important thing that won’t change is the law. Civil rights protections remain in place regardless of which agency administers them. What will likely change are the processes surrounding those laws. For example, one thing to watch is how Section 504 complaints related to discrimination against individuals with disabilities are handled. At least for now, families will continue filing Section 504 complaints through the Education Department. In practice, complaints will likely still enter through the department’s front door even as more of the investigative work is performed by DOJ personnel behind the scenes.

Rick: Longer term, what are some of the potential implications of these moves?

Lindsay: One possibility is that each office begins to reflect the culture and priorities of its new partner agency. That could influence how issues are framed and resources are allocated. For example, DOJ approaches issues through a law enforcement and litigation lens, while OCR is more of a neutral fact-finding office. As a result, civil rights cases may become more closely connected to broader enforcement efforts across the federal government. On the special education side, there could be greater coordination with disability and health programs—given the focus of HHS. Whether those changes are viewed as improvements or drawbacks will depend largely on one’s perspective.

Rick: Several former OCR staff recently asserted that OCR’s case-processing manual obligates it to evaluate every complaint it receives, while DOJ’s civil rights division runs on enforcement discretion and has no such duty. How do you see that distinction playing out in practice?

Lindsay: I think that’s one of the most important implementation questions to watch and raises legitimate concerns. The Office for Civil Rights has long operated under a fairly structured case-processing system. Every complaint is screened against jurisdictional and procedural requirements, and if it meets those standards, the manual lays out how it moves through the process. The Justice Department has traditionally worked differently. Like most litigating agencies, it has broad discretion to decide which matters warrant its resources, whether because of their legal significance, systemic impact, or enforcement priorities. The administration has emphasized that the Department of Education retains legal authority, so in theory the OCR’s existing obligations shouldn’t disappear. But if Justice is doing more of the day-to-day investigative work, there is a legitimate question about whether that changes how cases are prioritized or how quickly they’re resolved. I don’t think we know the answer yet, but it’s something worth watching closely over the next year.

Rick: There’s been some vehement pushback from the field and various advocacy groups. The head of the Council of Administrators of Special Education wrote that, “IDEA is fundamentally an education law—not a healthcare law—and should continue to be administered by education policy experts who understand schools, teaching, learning, and accountability.” What do you make of such concerns?

Lindsay: I think those concerns are understandable and should be taken seriously. Many advocates worry that educational expertise could be diminished if responsibilities migrate outside the education community. At the same time, supporters of the move would argue that many students with disabilities already interact with multiple systems, including health, rehabilitation, and human services programs, and that greater coordination between departments could be beneficial. The real test will be whether schools receive clear guidance, families get timely support, and student outcomes improve. If that occurs, concerns may ease. If not, criticism will intensify quickly and lawsuits will follow.

Rick: Do we have a sense of whether the administration’s existing IAAs are working, and does that offer any insight into how these new agreements are likely to play out?

Lindsay: It’s still early, and we should be cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions. Some of the administration’s previously announced IAAs have operated without major public disruptions, which suggests these agreements can work from an administrative standpoint. But we don’t yet know whether they’re actually making the programs more effective or creating bureaucratic headaches. It has also taken a while to get some of them underway. Several have not even been implemented yet. For example, the K-12 formula funds—Title I-A, Title I-B, and so on—will continue to be administered by the Education Department this summer. The lesson here is that implementation matters far more than announcements. A well-managed agreement can function fairly seamlessly. A poorly managed one can create confusion and delays.

Rick: If you had one piece of advice for educational leaders trying to make sense of what these changes mean for them, what would it be?

Lindsay: It’s important to stay informed, but I would avoid overreacting to the initial headlines. Federal reorganizations often generate a great deal of uncertainty but few immediate consequences. Watch for changes in guidance, enforcement practices, reporting requirements, and communication channels. Those are more likely to affect day-to-day operations.

This post originally appeared on the blog Rick Hess Straight Up at Education Week on June 25th.