> Most of my career though is spent as a teacher - teaching Math, Science and Computers to primary students.

That tells me that you have had some fairly good matriculated schooling. I have been doing heavy-duty software engineering for decades, and am not qualified to teach math, science, or, surprisingly, computers, to primary students.

"Computer Science" isn't really "programming." It's the theory behind things, not just implementation. I don't consider myself to be a "computer scientist," although I know a lot of the stuff they do. My focus has always been on deliverables. In some cases, that's more valuable for getting paid, in other cases (like in academia, or the R&D sections of companies), maybe not so much.

I'm 63, and still learn new stuff every day. I choose to concentrate on deliverables, as opposed to theory, but that's me.

I would suggest that if you want to be at the pointy end, then it's not really about delivering product. That's not always using the latest $BUZZWORD technology, or giving up, when it gets annoying and boring. For me, I find great satisfaction, in delivering end-user product.

For many others, here, they are far more interested in developing theoretical lattices and engines; which is extremely valuable. We need all types, to advance the craft. You also get to play with the best toys.

I would suggest thinking about what the end goal is, then focusing the learning on that.