Social investment policies for mitigating inequalities in educational opportunities have reshaped early care and education (ECEC) across Europe over the past two decades. However, the outcomes of related national policies still vary widely (Van Lancker & Ghysels, 2016). In addition, scholars have highlighted how such ECEC policies translate into professional practices against the backdrop of specific welfare state traditions, the design of the education system, and whether social or educational administration is historically responsible for child and youth services (e.g., Leu & Schelle, 2009). Hence, systematic cross-national comparisons related to diverse welfare state arrangements and the specific historical development of ECEC are still rare. Even fewer analyses compare the cross-national restructuring of transitions between family and ECEC (e.g., Bradbury, 2019), a topic highly related to supranational initiatives (OECD, 2017). Luxembourg and Germany are interesting cases for such comparative research, as both countries combine traditionally family-oriented conservative welfare systems (Leitner, 2014) and highly stratified school systems but differ in terms of the integration of ECEC into the education system and the respective interrelation of education and care (split/unified). While in Luxembourg, preschool (“spillschoul”) is compulsory and part of the school system, the German kindergarten is voluntary and part of child and youth welfare with its unique socio-pedagogical approach. In both countries, however, the first PISA studies showed a shockingly high dependence of school success on social background, leading policymakers to improve ECEC, especially regarding the transition to primary school. This presentation will compare extended case studies (Burawoy, 2009) on two similar institutions that have emerged from these political debates in each country and which consist of the local combination of different institutions “under one roof” into a “Bildungshaus” (educational house). The comparison will use the apparent similarities of the two institutions to highlight how the respective societal, institutional, material and professional contexts enable and challenge effective practices to address inequalities. By focusing on changes in curriculum, language education, parent-teacher/educator relations, social space and institutional collaboration, we discuss how both institutions position themselves between the ‘schoolification’ of ECEC (Bradbury, 2019) and the “social-pedagogisation” of schools (Deinet & Icking, 2006) and how this reflects particular contextualised pathways of successfully addressing inequalities at the early stage. The analyses of policy reports, focus groups, and interviews with national stakeholders and professionals were conducted in the EU-funded PIONEERED project.

Bradbury, A. (2019). Datafied at four: The role of data in the ‘schoolification’ of early childhood education in England. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 7–21. Leu, H. R. & Schelle, R. (2009). Between education and care? Critical reflections on early childhood policies in Germany. Early Years, 29(1), 5–18. OECD (2017). Starting strong. Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education. OECD: Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en Van Lancker, W., & Ghysels, J. (2016). Explaining patterns of inequality in childcare service use across 31 developed economies: A welfare state perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 57(5), 310–337. Sigrid Leitner. (2014). Varieties of Familialism: Developing Care Policies in Conservative Welfare States. In P. Sandermann (Ed.), The End of Welfare as We Know It?: Continuity and Change in Western Welfare State Settings and Practices (1st ed., pp. 37–52). Barbara Budrich. Deinet, U. & Icking, M. (2006) (Eds.). Jugendhilfe und Schule. Analysen und Konzepte für die kommunale Kooperation. Barbara Budrich. Burawoy, M. (2009) The Extended Case Method. University of California Press.