The "gold standard" of science may be randomized double-blind experiments, but just because ethics preclude you from doing it do not mean what you are doing is not science. Of course, jut because you are does not mean you are doing science.
In political processes, participants are not bound to evidence and reason in the same manner as scientists and scholars; so, any decision can be justified. Keep that in mind when you hear folks talk about their "data."
Even those educators who claim to be unaffected by psychology or learning theory (in my experience a large majority of teachers eschew theory), their teaching is grounded in someone’s concepts of psychology and how human brains function.
Campbell's Law: "The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor" is particularly true in education.
"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." -Stephen Jay Gould
Schools, the institutions we have adopted for teaching, are a rather recent human invention, and may not be the best. Scholars have documented how teaching occurs in societies other than school and found some similarities; western schools have largely ignored that knowledge.
When using modern media, one cannot assume any editorial oversight. Hucksters, radicals, rascals, and idiots can all create content for the web and the content created by those groups appears in the same search engine results as those of professionals, experts, and authorities.
It may seem unnecessary to state it, but schools are places where children are present. Lots of children. Children who reflect the social, racial, ethnic, and other characteristics of the local population.