The international comparative study being presented is referring to different levels in the education and curriculum systems (Bray & Thomas 1995: 475) of selected parts of Germany, France and Great Britain.

The country sample was determined on the basis of a most different system design (Przeworski & Teune 1970: 32). Here, the differences within the structure of the education systems (and the wider social, economic, and cultural context as well) of the three countries serve as explanatory variable for the object of investigation.

The case study design of the study required a selection of regions within two of the three countries investigated: As the German education system is regulated under federal law, two states (Laender) have been selected: Baden-Wuerttemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia. Furthermore, with respect to the different structures of the education and curriculum systems of England, Scotland, and Wales, the focus of this case study is on Scotland. In consequence, the results of this case study cannot be used to generalize the findings across each country.

Within this multiple case study the official curriculum, passed at the level of education policy, and the enacted or ‘lived’ curriculum on school and classroom level, are being compared.

The focus is on pre-vocational education, understood here as comprising all relevant school subjects and educational measures in lower secondary education (ISCED-level 2) contributing to an understanding of the world of work and economics (Berger 2015). To satisfy the variously shaped facets and dimensions of pre-vocational education in three different European countries, the research design was set up in a multilevel and multi-method design (Yin 2003: 50) (see below).

The research questions of the study are: How is the prescribed curriculum interpreted and implemented in teaching practice in lower secondary education in Germany, France and Scotland? What influences the implementation of the “prescribed” (Bloomer 1997: 135) or “official” (Posner 2004: 191) curriculum on the school and classroom level? What are the peculiarities, similarities, and differences in the structure, contents, and practices of pre-vocational education between the three European countries and how can they be interpreted with respective to the wider cultural, economic, and political context of each country?

In order to cope with this scope of the study, the research is based on two different but related theoretical reference fields: the curriculum research and the international comparative research in education. In this context it is assumed that the prescribed curriculum can be seen as the ‘mirror’ of a society and its corporate structures, culture, and identity. At the same time, the structures and values of a society are reproduced in the education policy of a state and hence through the publication of official curricula (Carr 2003: 116ff.). Hence, an international comparative study offers the major advantage to get a better domestic understanding, in terms of a deeper awareness of the situation and initial problems in the own country, through foreign understanding (Georg 2005: 186).

Adamson, B., & Morris, P. (2007). Comparing Curricula. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research. Approaches and methods (pp. 263–282). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong; Springer. Berger, S. (2015). Vorberufliche Bildung in Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien: Eine internationale vergleichende Fallstudie zur curricularen Ausformung in Theorie und Praxis. Bielefeld: wbv. [Publication in August 2015]. Bloomer, M. (1997). Curriculum making in post-16 education: The social conditions of studentship. London New York: Routledge. Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Different insights from different literatures and the value of multilevel analyses. Harvard educational review, 65(3), 472–490. Carr, W. (2003). The curriculum in and for a democratic society. In D. Scott (Ed.), Curriculum studies. Major themes in education (pp. 114–130). London, New York: Routledge. Fend, H. (2006). Neue Theorie der Schule: Einführung in das Verstehen von Bildungssystemen (1st ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss. Georg, W. (2005). Vergleichende Berufsbildungsforschung. In: F. Rauner (Ed.), Handbuch Berufsbildungsforschung (pp. 186–193). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Comparative studies in behavioral science. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Schriewer, J. (2000). Stichwort: Internationaler Vergleich in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(4), 495–515. Squires, D. A. (2009). Curriculum alignment: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press. Thornton, S. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning. A Project of the National Council for the Social Studies (pp. 237–248). New York; Toronto: Macmillan; Collier Macmillan; Maxwell Macmillan International. Vollstädt, W., Tillmann, K.-J., Rauin, U., Höhmann, K., & Tebrügge, A. (1999). Lehrpläne im Schulalltag: Eine empirische Studie zur Akzeptanz und Wirkung von Lehrplänen in der Sekundarstufe I. Reihe Schule und Gesellschaft: Vol. 18. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, Calif: Sage Publications.