This symposium brings together research projects from three European countries to explore the relationship between didactics and curriculum reform. The interest behind this line of enquiry is the extent to which didactic practices survive the reforms. The studies explore three countries at different stages of curriculum reform: the introduction of the Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland in 2007, the reform of Italian primary schools since 2001, and the development of the established curriculum in Denmark The European Council (2009) agreed that cooperation in education and training for the period to 2020 should be established within a strategic framework to cover learning in all contexts, formal or non-formal, from early childhood settings and schools, through to higher education and adult learning. The strategic objectives of ensuring life-long learning; improvement in the quality of education; the promotion of equity and active citizenship; and the enhancement of creativity and innovation have set a challenging agenda for all. However as Keating (2008) warns, EU policies cannot be treated as monoliths: rather they remain ‘patchwork collages that combine multiple perspectives and agendas’ (p.404). This symposium offers insight into these collages by exploring curriculum reform at policy level across the EU and at a practice level within three member countries. The symposium aims to meet the Network 27 objectives through an emphasis on inter-disciplinary and applied research. The four papers draw on eight independent research projects. The individual methodologies of each project are set out in detail in the abstracts which follow. They include five empirical studies of teachers and trainee teachers and three policy studies in which curriculum and policy documentation were analysed. All eight studies were informed by literature reviews building on the analysis by Colucci-Gray and Fraser (2008). In drawing the projects together the co-participants adopted Hansen’s (2008) Curriculum Workshop framework for ‘professional deliberation and inquiry’ (p.487). This takes the form of a collaborative project in which practical difficulties of curriculum implementation are investigated alongside theoretical representations of the issues. The approach proved particularly effective in bringing together the views of practitioners, teacher trainees and experienced teacher educators. An account of the Curriculum Workshop is provided in the first paper. In adopting this approach the investigation draws on a range of theoretical frameworks to explore professionalism, leadership, autonomy and identity (Solomon and Tresman, 1999; Lopes, 2009; Clarke and Wildy, 2009) alongside practical issues relating to integrated and child centred curricula; critical pedagogy and student autonomy. Collectively the papers reveal the changing demands on teachers, trainees and teacher educators across the three countries as they accept greater responsibility for curriculum design. Common problems of lack of subject expertise and skills in developing innovative methodologies are identified alongside the opportunities created for greater autonomy for both teachers and students. Although common problems are found within the three countries, the papers reveal how each problem is influenced by diverse traditions and historical practices. Nevertheless new opportunities appear genuinely available to all. The following abstracts give fuller accounts of these findings. Full references appear in the papers.