This critical discourse analysis examines the construction of an "appropriate" education by Florida administrative law judges in their special education final orders over time. The results indicate that despite each child being different, the construction of an appropriate education was uniform within the given time periods. Prior to the "Rowley" decision, the administrative law judges utilized their own judgment in constructing an appropriate education. This construction was based on whether or not the proposed Individualized Education Program was designed to meet the needs of the child. Each final order avoided discussing the law in detail, credibility, deference, or burden of proof. The results indicate that after "Rowley" and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004), the "Rowley" decision established an epistemic hierarchy. It gave deference to school districts--not parents--as experts. Additionally, after "Rowley" and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the power of an administrative law judge to construct an appropriate education was constrained by the discourse in the "Rowley" decision. Throughout all three time periods, the administrative law judges all emphasized that students were not entitled to the best education possible.