Emotional appeals are working; How to make it stop?

Would this question/wondering for advice be acceptable for sharing here?

I am veteran K-12 administrator. I have been perplexed and frustrated by our inability to debate our educational agenda in objectively.

In K – 12 education, a debate about (1) the model (or variants of hybrid, virtual, etc.), (2) safety, and (3) equity are dominating strategic planning.
 
The argument that, “we are in this for the children” seems to be a battle cry for many administrators. It is proving highly-effective inside the decision-making process. Decisions that affect the lives of communities are being made around this appeal.
“Teachers need to do ‘x’ and just do what they get paid to do,” is a common point.
“We need to put the kids first and get everyone back in school as much as possible,” is another.  
 
Pointing out the obvious for those in K-12:
We are writing the operations’ playbook during a pandemic.
Education research offers little guidance  at this time (we are making inferences and generalizations from kind and unkind domains)
Emotions (or politics) surface during these discussions in the form of beliefs. 

We are creating the plane while flying, so the saying goes.
 
Although the fallacy of this emotional appeal has been revealed to the audience, the argument continues to work in favor of a conclusion. Those not in favor are the subject of ad hominin rejections. It seems that reason has been misplaced by fervor or ideology.
 
Meanwhile, we often find ourselves sitting at a bifurcation in the road hungry and thirsty; and we are equally distant from said nourishment. 
 
How would you get this argument into a place where authentic discussion (objective intent) is possible?

I think the only thing to address here is the claim that “we are in this for the children.”

Yes, it is an emotional appeal, but the fallaciousness of the appeal would depend on its context. For example:

We are in this for the children; therefore, we should hold classes in person.

It seems to me as if being "in this for the children" could be applied to any related argument here:

We are in this for the children; therefore, we should hold classes online.

An argument needs to be connecting the well-being of the children to the policy. There would be nothing fallacious about this. Schools really are "in it for the children." The emotional appeal by itself is fallacious, but when linked to reason, works just fine.

We are in this for the children (i.e., we want to do what is best for the children).
Research show that (insert policy here) is best for the children.
Therefore, we should do (insert policy here).

This isn't perfect, but it is the start of a decent argument.

I don't even understand what you mean by "1) the model (or variants of hybrid, virtual, etc.), (2) safety, and (3) equity" in this context. To me, a lot of the preliminaries must be set forth in concrete terms before one can deal with any issues.