Charles County school board votes to conduct community survey on renaming Indian Head Elementary

The Board of Education of Charles County voted Jan. 14 to direct the superintendent to conduct community outreach and a formal survey about whether Indian Head Elementary School should be renamed.

The board’s decision followed a presentation by Jack Tuttle, the system’s social studies content specialist, who summarized archival research and interviews about the origin of the town name. Tuttle told the board he found repeated historical map and archival references calling the place “Indian Head” or “Indian Headlands” and concluded “it was a foregone conclusion because the school was located in a town by the same name.” Superintendent Maria Navarro presented legal and procedural steps under board policy 7230 that would be required if the board chooses to proceed beyond the outreach phase.

Why it matters: The school’s name has been the subject of community debate since 2020, and the board’s action begins the formal, policy-prescribed process of listening to the local school community and documented stakeholders before any renaming decision. Under policy 7230, the board may not decide a name change until it has completed the outreach steps and observed the required meeting intervals.

Tuttle’s research and interviews: Tuttle told the board his review of maps and archival sources showed the “Indian Head” label developed as a geographic place-name (a headland or point) rather than directly naming a single person. He also reported interviews with local historians and tribal representatives; some interviewees told him the name was a geographic designation tied to Piscataway and Conoy homelands, while others, including tribal leadership, have said they do not support a name change. Navarro emphasized the difference between that research and the policy process, saying in part that “the board tasked the superintendent…to go back and, following your policy, 7230, provide a history…of the idea of the name behind Indian Head Elementary.”

Costs, timeline and next steps: Navarro provided a high-level cost estimate for changing a school name (for example, replacing two school marquees was listed near $20,000 in the superintendent’s estimate). She told the board that, if it directs outreach, staff would begin public engagement in February, run through April, and return survey results for board consideration in May or June. Navarro also reminded the board that under policy 7230 the board must hold three intervening meetings before taking any final renaming vote.

Board response and vote: Board member Butler Washington moved the motion to “entertain having a community survey” and Miss Thomas seconded. After brief discussion the board voted to proceed with the outreach phase; the motion carried. Several board members said they want extra briefings with district 2 residents and emphasized that the process should capture the views of Native American tribal representatives, alumni and the school community.

Community views noted at the meeting: During the presentation members read statements and interview summaries into the record. Board members said tribal leaders contacted by the district do not uniformly support a change; at least one board member summarized her understanding that the tribal leadership she had spoken with “was not in favor” of renaming. Other board members said, on principle, that names that cause offense merit careful review and that the board must weigh the wishes of affected communities.

What the vote does (and does not) do: The board’s motion starts a policy-prescribed outreach process; it does not rename the school nor commit the board to any final outcome. If the board chooses later to move beyond outreach it must follow the multi-step community engagement defined in policy 7230 and allow for the three intervening board meetings before taking any final action.

Provenance: The board discussion and vote were recorded in the board meeting transcript and occurred during the social studies and Indian Head renaming segments of the Jan. 14 meeting; the superintendent’s presentation of options and the board’s motion to begin a community survey were included in the public record.