In Germany, the publication of the international large-scale assessment studies – namely PISA 2000 – sparked a new debate on education. Since then, hefty debates have continued to revolve around the studies’ results and their imperative consequences. Several measures have been implemented, especially those that provide additional information about the educational system (i.e. education report systems, school inspections). Policy makers are expected to use this information in terms of research-based evidence as one component among others for their decision-making processes. By now, it is not sufficiently investigated, if this expectation is fulfilled (Askim 2007; Pollitt 2006). In Germany, first findings have been provided by a study which has examined the ways of policy makers’ reception and use of the results of international large-scale assessment studies (Dedering 2008; Dedering et al. 2007; Tillmann et al. 2008). This study includes the description and analysis of follow-up activities of the education ministries of four German federal state countries in response to the PISA 2000 results – and in response to the pressure for public accountability. The study – that was submitted by the German Research Foundation (DFG) between 2003 and 2006 – encompassed case studies including a content analysis of newspaper articles and official documents as well as qualitative interviews with members of the ministries of education. The planned presentation focuses on the question, how policy makers use research-based evidence for their decision-making processes and whether changes in their usage can be stated in the course of time (from 2001 to 2008).

In order to answer this question, selected results of the study mentioned above (gained from an analysis of newspaper articles and official documents and qualitative interviews with policy makers) are combined with findings from qualitative interviews with members of the ministries of education that have been conducted in 2009. The interviews have been evaluated by means of a content analysis according to Mayring (2008).

Results to be presented will describe common features of the policy makers’ use across the four case studies. They will also reveal changes that can be due to increased professionalism of policy makers on the one hand and organizational development of ministries on the other hand. The findings can be referred to the theoretical background of neo-institutional approaches. As they enlighten the procedures and constraints of policy making at the federal state’s level and might give reason to discussions about experiences in other European countries, they clearly contribute to the network’s subject.