Go to content

Conceptual background and literature review

The conceptual background for this report investigates the idea of democratic education, citizenship, and participation within the context of Nordic education and takes stock of previous research related to student councils and student participation in Nordic schools.  

Democratic education, citizenship and participation

The concepts of democracy, active citizenship, and children’s rights are generally portrayed as fundamental to the Nordic model of education (Blossing et al., 2014; Nordic Council of Ministers, 2024). The ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989) in Nordic countries has further enhanced a climate for participation and empowerment of children and young people. However, application of these values in practice is far from straightforward and there are growing concerns over the way education for democracy, citizenship, and human rights are often either taken for granted or oversimplified within education policies and practices (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006; Edelstein, 2011; Gollifer, 2022; Magnúsdóttir & Jónasson, 2022; Osler & Goldschmidt-Gjerlow, 2024).
Much of the critique points towards increased power of marketised policies and practices as part of the problem (Dovemark et al., 2018), more specifically how they underpin and ignite an emphasis on standardised outcomes based on individualism and instrumentalisation as opposed to collective responsibility and communication (Guðjohnsen, in press; Harðardóttir & Magnúsdóttir, 2018; Jónsson, 2016). This shift towards ‘future citizen making’ in the name of democratic participation or citizenship education has been criticised by several scholars within the field of inclusive education (e.g., Biesta, 2006; Magnússon, 2019; Slee, 2011) for not attending to structural and contextual factors such as class and culture and thus excluding a large group of students from participation within the context of education. This is particularly so in larger and more diverse schools (Gillett-Swan et al., 2025).
These concerns have prompted calls for more critical and inclusive approaches to citizenship education paying explicit attention to the complex interaction of democracy and citizenship (Aðalbjarnardóttir, 2007; Harðardóttir, 2023) and how it plays out differently for diverse groups of young people within the context of education (Harðardóttir & Jónsson, 2021). This includes looking critically at ethical and global issues, understanding different historical and cultural contexts, and work deliberately towards students engaging in meaningful participation within educational settings. (Hämäläinen & Nivala, 2023; Jónsson & Garces Rodriguez, 2019; Sund & Pashby, 2020).
Researchers in the field of citizenship education have also emphasised the meaning of democratic knowledge, both at individual and societal levels. At the same time Storstad et al. (2023) findings, showed signs of declining civic knowledge among young people in the Nordic region which further indicates the importance of placing emphasis on this aspect in schoolwork, as such knowledge has predictive value for active and responsible civic behaviour. In Damiani et al. (2025) report, on the ICCS 2022 civic and citizenship study, findings showed that civic knowledge varied both across and within countries. However, between 2016 and 2022 students’ civic knowledge had decreased. Consistent with previous ICCS findings, female students reported higher civic knowledge than male students, and student socioeconomic status was positively associated with student civic knowledge. Further analysis of the data showed the meaning of civic knowledge for fostering fundamental democratic values such as trust and equality and preparing students in being active voters and spotting threats to democracy. Findings also showed strong associations between students’ civic knowledge and several attitudes, such as students’ views on sustainable behaviours.
Student councils are often held up as emblematic of democratic participation in schools, yet their actual function warrants closer examination. Sousa & Ferreira (2024) note how schools generally associate the existence of a student council with children’s democratic participation in the school. In contrast to this perceived linear relation, their analysis suggests that in most cases student councils are not experienced as a platform of democratic power-sharing but rather understood as advisory bodies under the supervision of teachers who might, or might not, be interested in meaningful democratic engagement of students. In addition, it has been argued that student councils often amplify the voices of already active students (Männistö, 2020; Tujula, 2023; Tiusanen, 2025).

FACT BOX: About student councils

STUDENT COUNCILS are formal structures within schools, designed to enable students to assemble, discuss and participate in decision-making regarding matters concerning them. They are typically composed of elected student representatives from older grades. Total number of participating students varies depending on different structures.
STUDENT COUNCILS core purpose is similar across the Nordic countries; to promote students’ voices and participation. Yet, their roles, mandates and levels of influence vary considerably depending on national legislation, school culture and administrative support.
STUDENT COUNCILS activities vary considerably but usually include organising events, initiating school improvement or leading discussions. While such activities reflect the potentials for democratic participation, they tend to have a narrow and normative agenda.     

Similarly, a systemic review by Griebler and Nowak (2012) on student councils within the context of health-promoting schools indicated that whilst students were likely to benefit on a personal level from participating in student councils, most councils are symbolic rather than impactful. In other words, students are given a platform but lack real decision-making power, risking maintaining or recreating normative power positions of both students and teachers. Practical challenges, including lack of time and space within the school, were also noted to impede the work of effective student councils. Such challenges are further exacerbated in the case of students with special educational needs as noted by Griffin (2022), who describes how students with disabilities are in many cases excluded from decision-making processes within the context of education. Griebler and Nowak (2012) finally note that effective student councils are those that have clear procedures and transparent selection processes, regular meetings, and strong communication links between diverse members, staff, and the greater student body.
To better understand and support meaningful participation within the context of schools, scholars have increasingly turned to conceptual models such as Lundy’s participation framework (Lundy, 2007, 2013). The model relies on children’s universal rights to participate based on Article 12 in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989). It has four elements crucial for examining the scope and depth of children’s participation: space, voice, audience, and influence. It has been endorsed and adopted by national, regional, and international authorities and underpins a global shift towards increasingly participatory and child-friendly policy frameworks concerning children’s education and leisure activities (EU, n.d.; Long & Grant, 2024; Molloy, 2024; NICCY, 2022). While the Lundy model provides a robust framework, recent data from the Nordic countries suggest that implementation remains uneven. Findings from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (Schulz et al., 2023) report an evident backlash to democratic experiences of children and young people in Nordic schools (Schulz et al., 2023; Guðjohnsen, Jordan et al., 2024). In the ICCS study from 2022, where 22 countries took part, including three Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden), most students – close to 80% – are reported to have access to student councils according to principals’ reports. Danish and Swedish principals estimated their students’ access to student councils as well below this average, or at 58% and 45% respectively, while Norwegian reports indicated that nearly 90% of all students in Norway are understood by principals to have access to student councils (Schulz et al., 2023).
Perhaps more importantly, it is the perspectives offered by students themselves that provide the most valuable insight. The findings from the ICCS 2022 study revealed that Danish and Swedish students are among the most sceptical about their own influence in school governance (Schulz et al., 2023). Only half of the student population in these two countries reported believing that voting in student council elections makes a difference in their school (Bruun & Lieberkind, 2024; Skolverket, 2024). Similar findings have been reported in Iceland where many students in both lower- and upper-secondary schools expressed experiencing that their ideas were not given sufficient weight in their schools (Guðjohnsen, Haraldsson et al., 2024). In Finland, while students in upper-secondary schools view student councils positively, they are hesitant to participate due to perceived limited impact. In other words, students trust in student councils role as a democratic body in schools but are unwilling to participate in the activities and decision-making of the student councils (Hiljanen, 2022).
The tension between the normative ideals of democratic education and the realities of school governance is particularly visible in the case of student councils. While international recognised frameworks such as the CRC and the Lundy model offer a strong foundation for children’s participatory rights, evidence from the Nordic region reveals persistent structural, relational, and cultural barriers that hinder meaningful engagement. Student councils, often positioned as symbols of school democracy, risk becoming tokenistic unless supported by inclusive practices, equitable representation, and genuine power-sharing mechanisms. Doing so requires sustained commitment to structural change, critical reflection, and a willingness to listen to the diverse voices of young people on their own terms.

Supporting educators to foster meaningful participation

For student councils to function as meaningful platforms for democratic engagement, educators must be equipped and empowered to actively support and guide them. This involves not only an understanding of democratic values but also the use of teaching methods that foster participation and inclusion. Whole-school democratic approaches and deliberate opportunities for student voice are essential in cultivating a participatory school culture (Donbavand & Hoskins, 2021).
Westheimer (2014) emphasises the importance of civic discussions in the classroom and the value of exposing students to multiple perspectives. Similarly, Tujula et al. (2021) have found that the open classroom discussions are linked to students’ orientation towards societal influence. In addition, research by Aðalbjarnardóttir and Harðardóttir (2018) demonstrates that students who experience meaningful participation in democratic classroom discussions are more likely to express inclusive attitudes, including respect for the rights of immigrants and women. For such participation to be effective, however, Westheimer (2014) argues that the issues explored must be personally relevant to students. This includes providing opportunities for practical problem-solving where students work collaboratively to identify and evaluate solutions to real-life challenges.
Yet, a cautionary note is warranted. There is a risk that participation may be reduced to superficial or commercial activities, such as planning entertainment events or organising fundraising projects. These may be easier to facilitate but can detract from the development of critical democratic experiences. Biesta and Lawy (2006) warn against such instrumental approaches to education, which may undermine the deeper goals of creating a truly democratic form of life where one is able to learn about, through, and for democracy (Edelstein, 2011, p. 130) based on shared values and collective responsibility (Guðjohnsen, Haraldsson et al., 2024).
Empirical research from Iceland points to further challenges in realising meaningful student participation. A small-scale study using focus group interviews with 15-year-old students in Icelandic upper-secondary schools revealed concerns about the integrity of the student council election process. While all students were formally allowed to run, teachers often influenced the process by suggesting certain candidates or excluding others based on academic or social criteria. This practice led to a general sense of mistrust among students, who perceived the student council as disconnected from their educational experiences and well-being (Guðmundsson, 2016). Additional research highlights a broader uncertainty among Icelandic educators regarding the facilitation of citizenship learning. Students across primary and upper-secondary schools reported that their teachers often appeared unsure of how to approach democratic education in practice (Guðjohnsen, in press). This perception aligns with teachers’ own accounts of feeling insufficiently prepared to promote inclusion and democratic participation, particularly in culturally diverse classrooms (Harðardóttir et al., 2019; Harðardóttir & Magnúsdóttir, 2018).

The impact of Covid-19 

The Nordic countries have made every effort to fulfil the obligation of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and emphasise the responsibility of authorities to promote young people’s social involvement and opportunities to influence matters concerning themselves with their well-being in mind. In addition, there is an ongoing need to safeguard democratic participation of groups that are at risk of not being heard because of disabilities, foreign background, etc. but also during crisis such as was the Covid-19 pandemic. A considerable amount of research has been conducted in the Nordic countries on the significance of the Covid-19 era for children’s and young people’s learning and social interactions. Among those are reports led by the Nordic Welfare Centre on behalf of the Nordic Council of Ministers.
In the first report, Nordic youth voices: The pandemic and the right to be heard (Løberg, 2023), findings described young people’s experiences of lacking support during the pandemic related to difficulties when moving between school levels. In the second report, Child and youth participation during crisis:  Recommendations for decision makers in the Nordic region (Kjellander & Sjöblom, 2023), the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic for children and youth were investigated, as was their right to be heard. The main findings emphasised the meaning of building sustainable participatory processes that become critical infrastructure during crisis.
The third report, Children’s and young people’s participation during the corona pandemic: Nordic initiatives (Helfer, Aapola-Kari et al., 2023), gave an overview of Nordic authorities’ measures during the pandemic to ensure participation and influence of children and young people. Findings indicated that in most of the Nordic countries, including Faroe Islands and Greenland, children’s voices were found to be ignored to some degree and when they were consulted, it was after decisions had already been made. In addition, representatives of institutions working for and with children and youth expressed having been unprepared for the crisis and its many challenges. The fourth report, Restricted childhood, interrupted youth: Research observations on education, leisure, and participation, summarised new Nordic research on the consequences of the pandemic (Helfer, Ibsen et al., 2023).
The main findings of studies presented in these reports carried out under the umbrella of the Nordic Welfare Centre indicated that children and young people had very limited opportunities to take part in decision-making concerning their well-being and participation during the pandemic. Their rights to be consulted and heard were largely neglected. Lessons from this time when children and youth had little influence on their education situations showed that gathering additional Nordic knowledge and competence about how student councils work must be further developed.

Research questions

The research question that we seek to answer with our data is as follows:
  • What is the status, role, and perceived impact of student councils in Nordic schools?
  • What characterises the regulations on student councils in the Nordic countries?
  • How are students selected to participate in student councils across the Nordic countries?
  • To what extent are students familiar with the purpose and function of student councils?
  • What proportion of students, report having experience of serving in student councils
  • What types of issues are typically addressed by student councils?
  • How do students describe their experiences of having students’ suggestions heard by school staff?