I understand this. And honestly, a part of me believes in several years we (my wife and I) will look back on this time with fondness as we've never been able to

I understand this. And honestly, a part of me believes in several years we (my wife and I) will look back on this time with fondness as we've never been able to spend this much time together as a family unit. But what I meant in the OP was how - across 3 months - school was put on hold even though my kids would dial in a few times a week. I could tell some of the teachers _wanted_ to teach but I am certain there were orders from above not to. If there's one child who didn't have access to a laptop or internet across the district, I think the idea was that no one would be taught material as a result. I don't have the right answers - I just know that if that's what school looks like in the Fall, it will only deepen class divides where the well-off pay for private tutors, and the rest of the kids simply drift. I have one friend who has a daughter here who - across 3 months - only had 2 sessions with her teacher. That was it. Effectively, school _was_ cancelled, if not officially. Hence why the idea of just lobbing off a whole year's worth sounded intriguing. But at the end of the day this is really all about economics and why there's a push to get kids back in school no matter what, plan or no plan. The economy won't start to heal until kids are under the in-person daycare of schools. It's just a fact. This is all going to be very messy for at least another 12-18 months. EDIT: My dad taught for over 50 years at the high school level. He is now 81. He taught well into his 70s. I imagine there are quite a few teachers who are terrified of being forced back to work in-person unless significant changes are made, and even then... This may force a lot of early retirements.