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.
The Role of the Speech-Language Pathologist in the Schools for the Treatment of Voice Disorders: Working within the Framework of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act