Will Moving Special Education Enforcement to HHS and DOJ Hurt Students? Maybe. But the Current System Is Already Failing Too Many Families. Let's talk about it.
- Jun 22
- 3 min read
The recent proposal to transfer certain special education and civil rights responsibilities from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice has sparked strong reactions. Some advocates have warned that these changes will harm students with disabilities. Others see an opportunity for reform.
Both sides deserve to be heard. But one thing is often missing from the conversation.
The current system is already failing too many families.
For decades, parents have reported years-long delays, confusing complaint processes, inconsistent enforcement, and situations where disability-related issues escalate into truancy proceedings, juvenile court involvement, or adversarial relationships with schools.
Those problems did not begin with this proposal.
They existed under the current structure.
Rights Are Not the Same as Enforcement
Federal disability laws such as IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were created to protect students with disabilities. Those laws do not disappear simply because responsibilities are reorganized.
The more important question is whether families can realistically enforce those rights.
A right that exists only on paper is not enough.
Parents should not need law degrees, tens of thousands of dollars, or years of persistence just to obtain evaluations, accommodations, or appropriate educational services.
The true measure of any system is not how impressive it looks on an organizational chart.
It is whether children receive help when they need it.
Could the Changes Improve Things?
Possibly.
The Department of Justice already enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act and has stronger litigation authority than the Office for Civil Rights.
The Department of Health and Human Services oversees many programs affecting children with disabilities and families. Increased coordination between education, healthcare, and disability systems could potentially lead to earlier intervention and fewer unnecessary escalations.
Many attendance and truancy disputes involve underlying disabilities, anxiety, autism, ADHD, medical conditions, or failures to evaluate students properly.
Perhaps greater involvement by agencies experienced in disability and health issues could lead to better outcomes.
Perhaps not.
No one knows yet.
Reform Should Be Judged by Results
Critics are right to ask difficult questions.
Will families have to navigate even more bureaucracy?
Will expertise be lost?
Will complaints take longer?
Those concerns are legitimate.
But supporters are also right to point out that the current system has significant shortcomings.
Long delays, inconsistent enforcement, and inaccessible complaint systems are not signs of success.
Simply defending the status quo is not enough.
The goal should not be preserving agencies for their own sake.
The goal should be protecting children.
Families Need Accessible Systems
Parents should not have to understand appellate legal writing, evidentiary standards, burden shifting, corrective action doctrine, or complex jurisdictional questions to advocate for their own children.
A complaint system that is usable only by legally trained parents is not meaningfully accessible.
Families deserve clear processes.
Students deserve timely intervention.
Schools deserve guidance that prioritizes solutions rather than conflict.
And all reforms, whether they involve the Department of Education, HHS, or DOJ, should ultimately be judged by one question:
Are children with disabilities receiving better outcomes?
If the answer is yes, then reform has value.
If the answer is no, then more work remains.
Because protecting students should matter more than protecting bureaucracies.
Chelsea Chewning
Founder, Viera Advocacy Group LLC
Defending disability rights through education, accountability, and accessible advocacy.
Comments