Why Quebec First Nations are challenging a new ‘American Abenaki’ curriculum for Vermont schools
A new school curriculum released by four Vermont state recognized Abenaki groups has reopened a long running dispute over Indigenous identity, authority and historical narrative in the northeastern United States.The material, titled the American Abenaki Curriculum, is intended for students from grades three through twelve. It presents the history, culture and contemporary experiences of Abenaki communities recognised by Vermont. What it does not do, by design, is centre the perspectives of two Abenaki nations headquartered in Quebec. That omission has become the fault line.Leaders of the Odanak and Wolinak First Nations argue that the curriculum erases their authority as historic Abenaki nations and legitimises what they describe as long standing identity appropriation by the Vermont groups. Leaders of the Vermont recognised groups say the curriculum reflects their lived experience and their standing under state law. The disagreement is now moving from press conferences into the Vermont legislature.
A curriculum shaped by state recognition
The curriculum was developed under the oversight of the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs, a state body tasked with representing Vermont recognised tribes. Some commissioners are members of those groups.According to its website, the curriculum asks students: “How have the Abenaki people survived and adapted to their environment for thousands of years?” It includes digital materials, discussion prompts and historical narratives tied to the four state recognised groups: the Elnu Abenaki, the Nulhegan Abenaki, the Koasek Band of the Koas Abenaki Nation and the Abenaki Nation at Missisquoi.Its authors say the focus is intentional.Dan Coutu, chair of the commission, said at a December press conference that the curriculum was meant to reflect Vermont specific history. “They have their voice free to speak up, as they have,” he said, referring to Odanak and Wolinak leaders. “And now, it’s our turn.”The curriculum draws in part on documentation submitted by the groups during Vermont’s tribal recognition process, according to its authors.
“There is no such thing as ‘American Abenaki’”
Odanak and Wolinak leaders say they were excluded from the curriculum’s development despite maintaining that their ancestral homeland, known as Ndakina, extends across what is now the US Canada border, including Vermont.In a joint statement, the two First Nations described the curriculum as a “rewriting of history.”“There is no such thing as ‘American Abenaki,’ as Abenaki identity and Ndakina predate colonial borders and cannot be redefined by modern administrative categories,” the statement said.The statement added that presenting a curriculum under a reconfigured identity “amounts to trivializing the rewriting of history and normalizing cultural appropriation in public and educational spheres.”The dispute reflects a deeper disagreement that has intensified in recent years: whether Vermont’s state recognition process validated communities with demonstrable continuity from historic Abenaki nations or granted legitimacy to groups without Indigenous ancestry.
From academic debate to political conflict
The release of the curriculum follows a series of actions by Odanak and Wolinak aimed at challenging Vermont’s recognition decisions.In October, the two nations published a report examining approximately fifteen generations of ancestry for several prominent members of Vermont recognised tribes. The report concluded that those individuals were almost entirely of European descent.The genealogical research was conducted by Darryl Leroux, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa, whose previous academic work has raised similar questions about state recognised tribes in the region. The findings have been contested by leaders of the Vermont groups.In a column published in November, chiefs of the Nulhegan, Missisquoi and Koasek groups described the report as “junk science, compiled with bias and full of factual and interpretive errors.”According to reporting by the Associated Press, Odanak’s tribal government has circulated the report to legislators in Vermont and New Hampshire and launched a year long television campaign arguing that the state recognised tribes are not legitimate Indigenous communities.“It is essential that everyone understand the reality of our identity,” said Jacques Watso, a councilor for Odanak First Nation, in a press release announcing the campaign. “The truth cannot be ignored.”
A tense rollout and a legislative response
Tensions surfaced publicly at the December press conference announcing the curriculum. Denise Watso, an Odanak citizen who said she was attending as an observer, criticised the curriculum during the question period and was later escorted out after the exchange grew heated.The disagreement is now drawing legislative attention.Representative Troy Headrick, an independent from Burlington, plans to introduce a bill that would require consultation with and endorsement from Odanak and Wolinak before Indigenous history curricula could be used in Vermont schools.“We’ve given these state identified groups a foothold through the state recognition process,” Headrick said in an interview cited by the Associated Press. “And they’re exploiting that foothold in a pretty significant way.”Headrick previously introduced legislation that would have created a task force to reexamine Vermont’s tribal recognition decisions. That proposal did not advance during the last legislative session.House leadership has not yet indicated whether the new bill will gain traction when lawmakers return.
What is really at stake
At its core, the conflict is not only about a curriculum. It is about who has the authority to define Indigenous identity, whose history enters classrooms and how state recognition intersects with Indigenous sovereignty.For Vermont’s recognised groups, the curriculum represents affirmation after decades of marginalisation. For Odanak and Wolinak, it represents the institutionalisation of a narrative they say erases their people while borrowing their name.The outcome may not be decided by historians alone. It will be shaped by legislators, courts and school boards deciding whose version of history is authorised for public education.For students, the lesson may be less about ancient survival and more about how power, recognition and identity are negotiated in the present.
