Our aim in this paper is to undertake a meta-analysis of four policy studies which we have recently undertaken, in order to explore the extent to which general claims can be derived about the nature of the processes employed in current modes of policy making. One element of our paper will be to attempt to draw up a framework within which colleagues in different European countries might locate modes of policy-making characteristic of their own countries. Underpinning the paper is a continuing curiosity on the part of the authors about what is purely local, particular and idiosyncratic and what constitute European or indeed global 'trends'. Using qualitative methodologies we will revisit data collected on the processes of policymaking in four different settings and subject them to new analysis in order to see whether certain of our key concepts, recur or 'travel' across policies.The projects are:Mahony P. and Hextall I. (1997- 99) Impact on Teaching of the National Professional Qualifications (ESRC R000239286)Mahony P., Menter, I. and Hextall I. (2001-03) Impact of Threshold Assessment on Teachers' Work (ESRC R000237382)Menter, I., Smith, I. and Brisard, E. (2002-04) Convergence or Divergence?: Policy and Practice in Initial Teacher Education in Scotland and England (funded by University of Paisley)Moss, G. (2004-6) Re-making Literacy for Schools: Policy networks and literacy paradigms(ESRC RES000230700)The first stage of our analysis will explore the emergence of what we describe as 'fast policy' and its defining characteristics. The analysis will be driven by some of the key concepts we have already employed to describe: the mechanisms used to monitor, remake and 'unmake' policies that are not working, including the use of 'lightning rods' to deflect criticism when policy fails; the nature of changing forms of accountability; the relationships between structural conditions and lived experience; the discourses and key concepts used to 'sell' policy; the key players in policy making, both those who are positioned as subjects and as objects of policy including those defined as 'stakeholders', 'users', 'partners' etc. In the second stage of our analysis, against the background of the insights gained from these four studies, we seek to critically review the models of the policy process which we - and others - have deployed, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. It is our intention to contribute to the development of a model which is more dynamic, multi- dimensional and sophisticated than the frequently linear, unidimensional models deployed in the past. A contemporary model of the policy process needs to reflect global, regional (eg European), national, intra-national spheres of influence as well as acknowledging the significance of education workers, students, parents, both individually and collectively in shaping policy.