This is one problem I think remote learning could solve, like geographic arbitrage.

Just like before Netflix, Hulu, Disney+ etc you had one cable provider in your location, the package gave you some of the channels you wanted but never everything, and a lot of channels you didn't now you can do what you want, and your provider isn't based on your geographic location.

Remote learning allows you to choose a school, or even a teacher based on your kids needs. Pick one that has the teaching method you want, say you have a kid with dyslexia but none of the teachers in your local school have experience with it. You can now go to the "school" or class with the teacher that specializes in teaching kids with dyslexia. Your school system doesn't pay enough to hire and keep good teachers or at least live comfortably in your area? Say 40-60k in your city doesn't go far enough there, but the teacher could be in a cheaper city or state as long as they're board certified in your state. The inverse could be true, a really good teacher could work for NYC schools making good money, but live in NY State. Some rural communities are hiring teachers out of the Philippines because they can't find good teachers willing to live in those areas, remote learning may also help solve this need.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/05/arizona-teac...

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/schools-in-illinois-florid...

Remote learning doesn't fix the secondary concern of American education. Child care. Millions of families are SOL since they can't work as many hours without someone watching the kids.

Remote learning isn't a long term solution

This is assuming I was advocating for eliminating that option either. All solutions have pros and cons. It solves a problem for some, and creates a problem for others. You're presenting a con, but there's also nothing saying a kid can't go to a local school to attend a remote class. Same as I sit in an office and my team works entirely elsewhere, and people in my office work in for teams that aren't entirely located on site.

People do this but communities also zone out lower income housing. My community says they will bring down property values.

In one part of LA theirs basically a small city completely surrounded by LA called Culver City. Culver City allowed for low income housing to be built , but then didn't allow those low income families to attend Culver City schools. Pretty overt classism( along with some other isms )

District lines are funny things. Our neighborhood could certainly be called 'affluent' and our schools are probably the best in the district. What I'm realizing is how little that counts for.

We could have chosen a cheaper neighborhood in a 'nicer' district but 9 years ago it didn't seem like such a big deal.

Yes, it would be cheaper in the long run. The problem is the housing cost differential can be several hundred K, and you may not be able to get a mortgage approved or find a low end home in the affluent area.