Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Terminology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill allowing use of ‘emotional disability’ in schools instead of ‘emotional disturbance’ (HB 866)
Summary
House Bill 866 would permit schools to use the term "emotional disability" in place of "emotional disturbance" in special education documents; extensive testimony from educators, school psychologists and clinicians emphasized stigma reduction and preserving access to services. The committee voted to pass the bill as executive action.
Representative Roanoke introduced House Bill 866, a bill that would allow (but not require) Montana public education entities to use the term “emotional disability” in place of “emotional disturbance” when referencing students who qualify for special education services.
Multiple school psychologists, special‑education teachers, child and family therapists and education administrators testified in support. Robbie Rudakovich, director of education at Shodair Children’s Hospital School, told the committee that the current term “emotional disturbance” is dated and stigmatizing; other witnesses including Margaret Montgomery (school psychologist), Maren Marks (special education teacher) and Bridget Neils (special education teacher) described family resistance to the label and said the term “emotional disability” better reflects educational need and aligns with person‑centered language used for other disability categories.
Witnesses and teachers described concrete classroom and IEP meeting impacts: parents feeling alienated by the wording, teachers being uncomfortable using the term in meetings, and instances where parents declined services because of the label. Testimony stressed that the bill does not mandate services, change eligibility, or increase spending; it changes terminology used by districts and requires only minor administrative updates. Sponsor closing remarks reiterated that the bill is about dignity, clarity and enabling families to access supports without stigma.
The committee moved to executive action on HB 866, Vice Chair Romano moved that the committee pass the bill, and the committee indicated unanimous support by voice vote; the committee recorded an aye and moved the bill to the floor.
Why it matters: multiple educators said the shift in terminology is a small statutory change with outsized effects on parent engagement, stigma and school‑family collaboration in IEP processes. Several witnesses noted federal rules still use “emotional disturbance,” but states have moved to updated terminology locally without changing eligibility criteria.
Status: the committee completed executive action and the bill will advance to the floor.
