Search

The concept of student participation is currently a popular notion in health promoting schools as well as in general education. However, phrases such as 'involvement', 'participation', 'co-determination' and 'influence' are frequently used without careful definition. In this article two models, developed in the context of health promoting schools in two different cultures, are presented and discussed. The first model makes a fundamental distinction between token and genuine participation. Token participation in health promotion is characterised by focusing on prescribed knowledge, closed and convergent outcomes and targeting individuals isolated from the surrounding environment. In contrast, genuine participation stresses students' own construction of knowledge, open and divergent outcomes and targeting individuals in their context. Genuine participation is in accordance with a democratic health promoting school aiming at students' empowerment and action competence. The second model clarifies a number of different categories of students' participation in health promotion. The different categories illustrate how the teacher in various ways can play an active role in participatory approaches as a responsible professional. The more the students are involved in health projects, the more important it will be for the teacher to provide support, insight and knowledge to facilitate the learning processes. Furthermore, the different participation categories have to be related to a number of decisions which are normally included in a school health project. The model illustrates that participation should always be viewed in relation to the context and that it makes no sense to establish a single ideal way of working with participation in a health promoting school. The theoretical models are illuminated by concrete examples from health promoting schools. The overall conclusion is that participation is a complex term and rather than providing definitive answers, the models can be used as a framework for discussion among all stakeholders in planning, implementation, evaluation and managing projects involving student participation. Finally, specific implications and challenges for future health promoting schools are outlined. These are as follows: a participatory approach does not imply that health content should be regarded as vague or superfluous; teachers need flexible educational models and resources to manage participatory projects in health promoting schools; schools have to be acknowledged as cultural systems with firmly rooted rules and routines that are often difficult to change; a participatory approach has to influence all aspects of a democratic health promoting school rather than solely the teaching strategies.