Hess: Obviously, there’s a lot of strong emotions and hyperbole on both sides. Stepping back, how big of a deal are these moves?
Fryer: 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.
Hess: What are some examples of what we should expect to change or not change as a result of these moves?
Fryer: 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.
Hess: Longer term, what are some of the potential implications of these moves?
Fryer: 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.
Hess: 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?
Fryer: 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.
Hess: 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?
Fryer: 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.
Hess: 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?
Fryer: 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.
Hess: 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?
Fryer: 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 conversation has been edited for length and clarity.