This paper discusses the findings from a qualitative research, that aimed to investigate how teachers in primary schools implemented municipal health promoting projects focusing on diet and physically activity, and how factors related to individual and institutional factors, according to the teachers, affected the implementation process. The research is linked to a health-promotion intervention project The School Health Project in a Danish municipality in the province. The project is funded by the Danish Ministry of Science, University of Aarhus and Silkeborg municipality, and involves 5 primary schools, 23 teachers  and 233 pupils from 7^th to 9 class.

The project is positioned within the critical approach to school health education and health promotion, developed in the European Network of Health promoting Schools, which is characterized by emphasis on holistic health, action competence, action, participation and action oriented knowledge. The critical approach to health promotion and health educations differs from the traditional health education which emphasizes the absence of disease, lifestyle and behavior change .To understand teachers' practices in relation to the policy objectives in relation to diet, physically activity and action competence the research are based on theory on implementation especially Lipskys' theory of street-level bureaucracy and the routines and simplifications of street-level bureaucrats.

The research discussed in this paper focuses on teachers' perspective on, reflections about and interpretations the implementation process in school based health promoting projects. Specifically, the research generates insight into:

• How teachers' convert the politically determined objectives in in relation to diet, physical activity and action competence to practice in health education?
• How to understand teachers' practices in relation to the policy objectives set out from their stories of individual and institutional factors?

Jensen, B.B. (1997). A case of two paradigms within health education. Health Education Research. Theory and Practice. Vol. 12, (No.3.), pp. 419-428. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S.(2009). InterView. En introduktion til et håndværk (2. udg.).København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Nielsen, V.L. (2006). Are Street-Level Bureaucrats compelled or enticed to cope? Public Administration Vol. 84, (No. 4), s.861-889. Rasmussen, V. B., & Rivett, D. (2000). The European Network of Health Promoting Schools – an alliance of health, education and democracy. Health Education, Vol.100, (No.2.), pp. 61-66. Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Sage Publications Ltd. Simovska, V. (2012). What do health-promoting schools promote? Processes and outcomes in school health promotion. Health Education. Vol.112, (No.2.), pp. 84-87.