This essay connects a number of recent books relating, in different ways, to the contentious issue of how teaching might be better guided by research evidence. In order to shed light on this problematic area, Terry Wrigley begins by pointing out that raising awkward questions about terms such as "evidence- based teaching" is not the same as saying that evidence is unimportant. No one would wish to be treated by a doctor, nor educated by a teacher, who disregards evidence: in the former case, this can be a matter of life and death. Indeed, part of the impetus behind the Evidence-Based Medicine movement was the recognition that too many doctors were relying on habit or tradition despite solid evidence to the contrary: it is beyond doubt that patients have benefited enormously from it. This makes the argument difficult to pursue: evidence (like "effectiveness" and "improvement" in schools) is so obviously a "good thing" that it becomes difficult to raise doubts. Because teachers, school leaders and indeed national agencies are under pressure to follow the medical profession in this regard, and because they are presented with a simplistic version of how that field operates, this review takes a closer look at this issue. To understand the recent emphasis on "evidence-based teaching" adequately, Wrigley goes on to distinguish the different contexts. This is followed by a discussion of several recent books and their relation to the issue of how teaching might be better guided by research evidence.