“ When we ask “Could  something be done about this matter?”, nothing happens. It’s just like that in every other matter as well.” This description of powerlessness and lack of participatory culture in schools was expressed by a group of pupils in a Finnish school, which is otherwise safe, which takes care of the relationship to parents and which has a lot multi-professional dialogue in taking care of students. This indicates that even when issues of protection and provision are adequately taken care of, the role of participation might be under-developed. This of course raises the questions about the role of schools in promoting participatory culture. How are pupils able to participate in schools? How does their sense of citizenship develop in schools? How is the power distributed between administrators, teachers and students? These questions deal with the agency of the young in schools and at with the fundamental mission of schools in supporting citizenship and civic education – both in theory and practice, both as conceptualized within different subjects and experienced in the communal daily life in schools.

Participation has a social and political dimension. The first dimension deals with issues of belonging, trust, respect and experienced safety. The latter focuses on decision-making, influencing a community, having a say, being listened to, and being taken part in a dialogue about affairs of community.  (Thomas 2007.) This is of course is an analytical categorization, and in practice these two  ideals types of participation can often do will interlap. However, the division is useful both in analyzing the quality of participation and  also when developing ways to promote participation. In this paper, the emphasis is put on the political dimension of participation in schools. The research question in this paper is: how the young themselves see their possibilities of participating? How do the participatory mechanisms  currently existing in schools meet the individual desires, youth cultures and different informal groups of the young?

The contested concept of participation is in this paper defined in the three-fold way. This definition is developed in the earlier work where youth participation was studies more widely (Kiilakoski, Gretschel & NIvala, 2012). Firstly, participation involves having a (formally and/or informally) recognized position as an agent. In the context of schools this means the position and influence given to students as representative bodies, such as student councils. It also refers to different informal encounters as individuals and groups. Secondly, participation should manifest itself in action (saying, doing, relating). In schools this means making an impact, having a say, being invited to express one’s opinions, about being offered different possibilities to interact, and being respected as an agent. Thirdly, participation should produce a feeling of participation. This latter perspective also indicates that questions about the quality of participation cannot be answered without asking the young how they have perceived their status in schools. This theoretical perspective defines participation as having social and political, as well as evocative components.

Dewey, John (1997) Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press. Kiilakoski, Tomi, Gretschel, Anu & Nivala, Elina (2012) Osallisuus, kansalaisuus, hyvinvointi. [Participation, Citizenship, Well-Being.] In Anu Gretschel & Tomi Kiilakoski (eds.) Demokratiaoppitunti. [Lesson in Democracy.] Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Society, 9–33. Rawls, John (2005) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Thomas, Nigel (2007) Towards a Theory of Children’s Participation. International Journal of Children’s Rights. Vol. 15(2007), 199–218. Watson, Debbie, Emery, Carl, Baybliss, Phil, Boushel, Margaret & McInnes, Karen (2012) Children’s emotional and social wellbeing in schools. A Critical Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press.