Meta-analyses are systematic summaries of research that use quantitative methods to find the mean effect size (standardized mean difference) for interventions. Critics of meta-analysis point out that such analyses can conflate the results of low- and high-quality studies, make improper comparisons and result in statistical noise. All these criticisms are valid for low-quality meta-analyses. However, high-quality meta-analyses correct all these problems. Critics of meta-analysis often suggest that selecting high-quality RCTs is a more valid methodology. However, education RCTs do not show consistent findings, even when all factors are controlled. Education is a social science, and variability is inevitable. Scholars who try to select the best RCTs will likely select RCTs that confirm their bias. High-quality meta-analyses offer a more transparent and rigorous model for determining best practices in education. While meta-analyses are not without limitations, they are the best tool for evaluating educational pedagogies and programs.