Posts by Lawrence Torres56

Susan James said:So, I was watching this vet on TV, and they were saying that parents who are pushing back just don't seem to get the whole idea behind a full-time program.
The speaker explained it quite nicely: kids would basically be at school until about 2:00 PM, maybe 2:30 PM at the latest, and anything after that is totally optional.
Plus, once they wrap up their school day, there’s no more work to worry about—no more homework or studying at the kitchen table late at night.
They’ll get everything done while they're actually at school.

It feels like we might be overcomplicating this debate when the solution seems so straightforward.
On top of that, since students won't have access to AI to cheat or copy answers, they'll have to rely on what they actually know, which is why having them do all their assignments during school hours is such a great move.

I'm just trying to crunch the numbers here... if an average 6th grader currently has about 5 hours of classes a day—meaning they're finished by noon and then grab lunch—they could spend that window from 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM finishing everything up. They can review what they didn't catch, finish their homework, and then be completely free after 2:30 PM with zero responsibilities at home.🙏
(Of course, math changes slightly because of the four extra elective hours per week plus two more for math and history, but those are just small details. Since they'll have a bit more time during that afternoon block, they can easily knock out the homework for five or six different subjects in an hour or ninety minutes.)

Honestly, though, I wouldn't want to be in a teacher's shoes. Imagine having angry parents showing up at 3:00 PM, giving you a hard time just because you worked those extra two hours—especially when their kid is actually crushing their exams! But hey, I suppose if the pay increases accordingly $833, it might make dealing with that stress a little easier.

Right... I remember hearing the exact same fairy tale when they tried to push after-school programs for the little kids in elementary, but let me tell you, I also know for a fact that a huge chunk of parents ended up hauling heavy backpacks home and sitting with their kids anyway to redo assignments and finish homework, because those programs cared more about checking a box than whether the kid actually understood the material, let alone mastered it.

And honestly, kids in middle school, especially if they're taking any electives or advanced classes, are already staying past 2:00 or 2:30 PM... so I have to wonder, do these geniuses spouting these ridiculous nonsense theories even have a clue how much time a kid actually spends in a classroom?

I don't know, man, but to me, this smells like the first step toward the privatization of the entire American education system....Because we all know what happens: whoever has the cash will pay for elite private schooling, while everyone else is stuck with a kid who's just mindlessly memorizing stuff in a public school, leaving the actual learning and heavy lifting to the parents at home.
The high-quality teachers and professors will (obviously) jump ship to wherever the bigger paychecks are, which just ramps up the pressure on parents to shell out for private tuition.

Long story short, kids lose their childhood, and parents get hit with the expectation of taking out massive student loans just to give their children a decent shot.

Honestly, don't overthink it—if there's any way you can hold off on starting school this year, just do it. Once a kid gets sucked into the American public school system, everyone starts piling on these massive expectations, right? And let's be real, hardly anyone actually stops to check if the kid is even mentally or emotionally ready for the grind.
A whole year makes a massive difference for a child, especially if you use that time to really roll up your sleeves and work through whatever hurdles they're facing.

And look, keep this in mind: elementary school is supposed to be the foundation where kids actually learn *how* to learn and tackle new stuff. But so many kids end up getting totally lost in the shuffle for all sorts of reasons, which just knocks them off their path toward what they’re actually passionate about. That's why it's so crucial not to push them into the deep end before they've even learned how to swim.

Peter Doyle2 said:Just to circle back to this one more time; it isn't about whether "some" kid finds it boring. The real issue is that 99.9% of people don't find required reading "boring"—they find it unbearable. If you ran a poll among 30 or 40-year-olds, I bet the results regarding what they read and their opinions on it would be pretty negative—not to mention among the younger generation.
The thing is, you have to analyze the content, build arguments, and characterize the figures—you have to understand them, their motives, and why they act the way they do; but a lot of these works feel completely foreign to kids today. Raskolnikov isn't even the biggest hurdle here, but something like Moby Dick...
In my view, what I wrote above is basically the whole point of assigned reading—it's a work we can argue about if we're dissecting it or writing essays on its characters. But that kind of approach requires actually grasping what was read. How much can a teenager truly grasp about Dunda Maroje?

Oh, you want to know why it's like that? It’s because most kids these days just don't read, and frankly, they have zero interest in starting... they act like they already know the required reading is going to be a total snooze-fest or just plain awful, even though they haven't even cracked the spine of the book yet.🤣

And honestly, what are you even supposed to give people like that to read? They aren't going to pick up a book regardless of what you hand them.
Here’s a perfect example from one of my old classes: out of an entire room of students, maybe three or four of them were actually putting in the work to read the assignments, while the other 17 or 18 wouldn't touch a book if their lives depended on it—even when we had an elective list of fifty different titles where some were only 50 pages long! Their absolute peak effort was scrolling through a SparkNotes summary online, and half the time they didn't even bother doing that. I remember once, the teacher actually gave them a shot and let them choose any book they wanted, provided they told her the title beforehand... and guess how many kids who supposedly "hated the curriculum" actually stepped up to read something else of their own choosing? Not a single soul.

So, yeah, everything that smart bitch wrote is spot on, word for word, because the problem for these kids isn't the books on the syllabus—it's the actual act of reading itself. Trying to coddle them or play nice just doesn't work... fine, they won't read the assigned book, okay? But then they can deal with failing the class and getting a big fat F on their report card for the exact same reason.

Joseph Sanchez10 said:First signs popped up back in September, so I just jotted down how he was struggling... basically, things were fine at the start of the school year, then everything was okay with the second teacher through October and November, and now we're back to this.
Honestly, I don't even know when the meetings are scheduled. We weren't given any info, so I'll probably just have to head down to the school and talk to his teacher in person since there’s no other way to get a hold of them.
Thanks for the reply, I think I have an idea of what to say now. I'll ask 👍

As for those bolded notes, check the online grading portal under the teacher's comments; also, conference dates are usually posted on the school's website if you want to poke around there a bit.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:Well, I feel a lot better now. My eyes were actually bleeding reading your post, and I’m not even a grammar Nazi. There's really no need to go on a massive rant about definitions and rules. ☕

👍
Bravo, I finally get why they had to make computer science a core subject in school... just so people wouldn't have their eyes bleeding for no reason. 🙂

Robert Rodriguez9 said:Do you teach at a school, or did I just get you mixed up with someone else? 🤔

You definitely swapped me out.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Oh, what a delightful cocktail of creativity, drill work, language acquisition, and conceptual understanding all tossed into one pot. But of course, the absolute star of the show is the rote drilling 🙄

I believe Mad mentioned this before—you can't really tackle those complex word problems in second grade until you've absolutely hammered home the multiplication tables (even if most kids just use their fingers to get by). It’s probably why so many adults in America struggle to set up a basic multiplication equation today, even though they spent years memorizing the charts back in school... Don't get me wrong, knowing the table is essential, but if a child hasn't grasped the actual link between addition and multiplication, all that mindless drilling isn't going to help them truly understand the math...

Lately, I've been watching my kid's science lessons unfold, and honestly, it’s quite something. They are being handed assignments straight from Red Bull, yet nobody actually performed the experiment they're supposed to be writing about! And then, immediately in the next period, it's off to a new lesson with twenty brand-new terms and a handful of definitions to memorize. Just move along, keep moving! And here I am, describing the worst-case scenario for elementary education. If nothing else, it's providing some logic practice at home, since my child has to try and predict the results of an experiment that was never even conducted in class (which is exactly what should have happened). We've already reached atoms and molecules in our little "homeschooling" version of the American education system; how else are they supposed to predict chemical reactions?

Actually, that stuff about second graders needing multiplication is total nonsense; the problems are really just addition and subtraction up to 20, which is first-grade level material. Even the third through fifth-grade assessments can be totally breezed through without having any specific knowledge of multiplication tables.

And honestly, that issue with elementary school—just cramming facts without ever explaining things through practical examples—is a systemic mess that no "educational reform" is ever going to fix... because "logic" is just one of those buzzwords people in this country love to toss around in speeches, but when it comes down to actually teaching it? Nothing. Zero. And it's not even entirely the teachers' fault; the blame lies with the bureaucrats who design the curriculum. They have zero connection to actual teaching, zero connection to the students, and frankly, zero clue about the subjects themselves.
The other day, I was listening to the Secretary of Education hyping up the rollout of computer science in schools... and honestly, I didn't know whether to cry from frustration or just laugh at the sheer absurdity of everything she was saying. I am convinced she hasn't the slightest clue about half the things she expects kids to master... but hey, as long as she can check the box that says "Computer Science is now mandatory," right? So now kids are expected to learn stuff that isn't even really computer science, coding, or programming—it’s just a disorganized mess of random topics thrown together. And God help the kids whose parents aren't tech-savvy and might actually want to learn something useful.

As for this supposed "school for life" concept? I won't even go there... it’s nothing more than a way to blunt kids' intellects and strip away opportunities for higher education for anyone who decides to pursue a vocational path. Apparently, this country doesn't think we need those kinds of skilled workers anyway.

Kate Cox2 said:I honestly don't follow the logic here—is she just allowed to opt out of discussing a story simply because she finds it uninteresting? Is that the standard now? If she decides she isn't feeling an art project, she just won't do it? Is that perfectly acceptable? By that reasoning, when she’s faced with a tedious English assignment, will she just skip that too? Or math? Good grief. You simply complete the task at hand if you want a decent grade. If you don't care about the grade, then fine, settle for a D or an F, but be fully aware that there are consequences (which, frankly, are for the parent to decide).
It doesn't bother me one bit if she receives a lower grade than she anticipated when she's struggling with a concept... she can just practice and improve. But if she simply refuses to try? Well, that's a different conversation entirely, and we would handle that very differently at home...

I am totally on board with that...

It’s honestly such a shame when parents don't realize they're actually sabotaging their own kid by acting this way—the kind of thing they're eventually going to regret themselves down the road.

bluesurfer6 said:I suppose certain sensitive stories just don't get traction on mainstream sites because of certain American cultural tendencies—you know, the whole habit of people using fake Facebook profiles to vent vitriol at the deceased.

Honestly, you've got it all wrong—people can comment on whatever they want, except for the specific stuff those folks at the top don't want us talking about. It’s got nothing to do with "sensitive" topics or some weird cultural thing...

I mean, look right here, for instance, where people are totally allowed to rip into someone who passed away.
A father of two died while trying to defuse a bomb

bluerider63 said:The Trilateral Commission and this whole pile of other secret or semi-secret groups—the ones the mainstream media ignores for reasons I can't quite wrap my head around—are basically the ones pulling the strings on global politics. It’s always these shadow players operating way out of the spotlight, while the presidents and prime ministers we see on TV just act as their errand boys.

Oh, come on, it’s not like the media is ignoring them; these people are all over the news every single day! It’s just that nobody wants to go on camera and loudly admit they belong to one of those organizations, so you end up with this illusion that they're invisible... I think someone here (maybe mistygull16?) posted a clip from that NU2 interview where Mickey Manoilov was answering a question from Stankovic about whether he was a Mason by saying, "Would I even be standing here if I wasn't?"

mistygull16 said:Honestly, I’d take a bunch of local hillbillies running the show over this global elite any day. Those guys are never satisfied with just their fair share, they always want everything.

watch the whole video, it's worth it.

It’s kind of like how Thomas W. Jackson (a Mason) used to put it:
"laws are our freedom" and "freemasonry never meddles in politics, yet meddling in politics is their ultimate goal."

The thing is, it’s going to take a while before people actually grasp what those words really mean.🙂

Sarah Hall53 said:Look, it really just comes down to how the school decides to set its priorities. Do they want classes split strictly by religious vs. non-religious tracks, or are they trying to play nice with what parents want—like which teacher gets their kid or who ends up in which classroom? (Back when I was in high school, those kinds of requests and preferences weren't even on the radar, honestly.)
How is it that high schools can just breeze through setting up these religion-vs-ethics tracks without any drama?

I don't really want to go digging through old threads, but I remember someone posting about this exact issue—they had a kid in a class where maybe five or six students didn't attend the religious studies sessions. It was the same deal in two other sections too, yet somehow, those kids weren't pulled into a separate non-religious group.
The thing is, if you create a non-religious track like that, the instructor loses two hours of teaching time. Think about it—if they have religious studies in the first three grades, that’s six hours a week, but if they move to two grades, it drops to four. If you have one non-religious section per grade across all eight grades, that’s 16 hours gone. You'd end up with an instructor only hitting a third of their required weekly workload. So, honestly, I truly believe the reason they aren't forming separate non-religious classes is simply to protect the teacher's full schedule.

Look, if you've got three first-grade classes where one group is learning Spanish and the other two are doing French, you're stuck: you either have to create an entirely new class—which keeps the teacher's hours intact—or you have to hope parents are cool with their kid learning a different language than their peers, which, let's be real, most of them aren't.
On the flip side, if you take those three first-grade classes, you'd only hit that fifteen-student threshold for a non-religious track if every single kid was studying the exact same language.

At our local elementary school here in the States, we always have four first-grade classes—one doing Spanish and three doing English—and not once, despite what the enrollment paperwork promises, has the school actually formed a separate non-religious track just because they hit fifteen students. It just doesn't happen. But oh yeah, that doesn't stop the parents from throwing a fit, claiming they signed their kid up for religious ed so they shouldn't have to sit in the hallway, or being totally disrespectful to the religion teacher and the kids who actually participate. I mean, what does that tell you about the whole situation?

You’re totally missing the mark here, and honestly, you’re just bashing your colleagues without actually bringing any real facts to the table.

Look, schools—which, let's be real, you should know a thing or two about—would absolutely love to, but they just can't manage to put together a single class of 15 kids who aren't opting out of religion classes. Why? Because parents are constantly shifting the goalposts, prioritizing random stuff over everything else, like demanding their kid stays in a specific classroom just because they had a certain colored crayon in preschool, or insisting on one specific teacher instead of another, or obsessing over which language elective the kid takes... you get the idea, it goes on forever.
Anyone who thinks I'm exaggerating is more than welcome to go check the reality at their own local school district.😉

By the way, besides the fact that having one new class of kids skipping religion wouldn't even touch the religious instructor's schedule, how on earth is it possible that with so many of these kids scattered across different grades, a student isn't just left sitting alone in the library or wandering the hallways all day?

I mean, seriously, what are we even doing here? Is anyone else just staring at this absolute mess and wondering how we got to this point? It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where nobody is even trying to grab the brakes. Honestly, does anyone actually have an answer for this, or are we all just collectively pretending everything is fine while the whole thing goes sideways? kaže:
.....
Look, can we just address the elephant in the room for a second? People keep trying to drag religion into the political arena like they’re somehow inseparable, but honestly, politics and theology have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I mean, really, where is this coming from? You can't just take one set of beliefs and force them onto a completely different system of governance and expect it to make any sense, right? It's like trying to mix oil and water—you're just going to end up with a messy puddle that doesn't serve anyone. Why does everyone feel the need to complicate things by blending two totally distinct worlds when they could just exist peacefully on their own? 😂
So, if that’s the case, then why on earth do we even have the Concordat? I mean, seriously, what is that actually supposed to be if not just straight-up politics?
Look, here’s the deal: when we're talking about what someone believes deep down in their own soul, politics shouldn't have a damn thing to do with it, right? Your personal faith is your business. But when it comes to actually implementing religious education in schools or shaping public policy based on those doctrines? Well, that's a whole different ball game, and honestly, politics absolutely *does* play a massive role there. It's pretty obvious, isn't it?
So, we’re looking at everything from how they actually build the school schedule—you know, making sure religious studies gets its fair shake as an actual core subject instead of just some afterthought tucked into a corner—all the way down to the nitty-gritty of actually hiring the teachers. It’s a whole process, really.

😕
Wait, am I tripping or was that first sentence just a total typo? Were you actually trying to say that religious studies has nothing to do with politics before you went off on that tangent? 😂 So, it’s really just a matter of "this or that," isn't it? Like, why do we even bother overcomplicating things when the choice is staring us right in the face? It feels like we're constantly stuck at these ridiculous crossroads where you've gotta pick a side, but honestly, does it even matter which way you turn? Is there actually a right answer, or are we all just spinning our wheels trying to decide between two equally questionable options?
Look, you’re totally right—the government seriously messed up by signing that Concordat in the first place. Instead of just handing over some massive settlement to cover all that stolen property and all those years they basically used Church assets for free, they should have just paid up and handed everything back. But no, instead of making things right, they just keep riding that same old wave, using those lands for nothing while spreading the same tired rhetoric to everyone. Why even bother playing fair if you're just going to keep profiting off what isn't yours?
If she hadn't managed to dodge that total bankruptcy back in the day by pulling off that whole Vatican deal, she’d probably be fully back on her feet by now. Honestly, wouldn't she be?😉

Jacob Lopez2 said:At the end of the day, the blame lies squarely with the parents because half of them enroll their kids in religious education classes just so their children won't be labeled as "different" or "outcasts" standing out in the hallway, even though they wouldn't bother if it weren't for that social pressure. Parents need to stop signing their kids up just to make their own lives easier; if you stopped doing that, fewer kids would be stuck in those classes and more would actually be spending their time in the library or wherever else they belong.

Exactly. At the end of the day, parents really need to learn how to actually stand by their own convictions instead of dragging their kids into all their messy little power plays, only to shamelessly use them as shields to justify their own stupidity. Is that too much to ask?
Look, honestly, once we finally see fewer kids signed up for religious studies in our classrooms, everything is going to get so much smoother. We’ll actually be able to group all the students who aren't taking those classes together into one cohesive class, right? It won't be some awkward logistical nightmare where half the kids are stuck wandering around the library or just hanging out in the hallway while everyone else is in session. Wouldn't that just make life easier for the teachers and the kids alike?

Richard Perez3 said:You’re getting all worked up over nothing.
Are you even reading what you wrote?
You literally said you teach your kid not to settle for blackmail, which basically implies everyone else is out here teaching their kids that stuff, and then suddenly you’re like, "who even says you're teaching kids..." Like, by saying *you* don't do it, you're pretty much admitting other people do.

Anyway, whatever, I'm too exhausted to play these mental games with you.
I just think you're being way too dismissive about this whole thing, acting like "oh, you don't teach your child to get hung up on fake friendships" is some deep insight.
Nobody here is doing that.
Your comment was just a total generalization.
Now that we've hopefully moved past that and you've realized everyone else is looking at this the same way, let's move on.
Does a kid even have the right to feel disappointed when they realize a friend isn't actually a friend anymore—due to broken trust?

Don't worry, I'm not losing my cool.😁
And yes, I am reading everything I write and everything anyone else writes, and sorry, I'm not implying anything—it's just that people who bring up trauma are usually the ones whose kids lost their best friends over religious stuff.🤦,
Does a kid have the right to be disappointed because of a friend's religious beliefs? Sure, they do, but if you ask me, it's kind of silly because kids that age shouldn't even be weighed down by that kind of stuff... which brings us back to the same point: it's not the kids' fault, it's us parents who end up poisoning them with our own ideologies instead of just explaining things simply and letting them be kids.

Richard Perez3 said:Man, you're just preaching here. I’m sure as hell not raising my kid to stress out over fake friends. And we actually talk about this stuff. 😁
Like, is it a crime to talk about feelings?
Look, I teach my kid everything, but getting them to face certain truths involves some serious emotional baggage. Like, imagine your best friend suddenly judges you for something totally out of your control—something that shouldn't even matter to the friendship. A kid has to process that mess first.
Our job is to help them through it if we can.
Or at least not make it worse.
Just because we adults are sitting here discussing this doesn't mean we're teaching kids to cave to blackmail.
If anything, it's the exact opposite. That's why we're talking about it.

No, those aren't "extremes"—real extremes would be telling a kid who knows nothing about religion that they should be traumatized just because someone at school mentioned the devil, or acting like they're broken because someone doesn't want to hang out with them anymore... sorry, no offense intended, but what exactly are you teaching your kids if that's your stance? Seriously, what's the point? What are they supposed to do? Forbid their so-called "best friends" from mentioning God just because we aren't religious?😕...it's like you think they won't feel any emotional pain in that scenario, or that we should force people to stay friends with our kid just because our kid wants them to.🤔

And honestly, who even said we're teaching kids to give in to blackmail? We're saying that a true friend isn't someone who tries to hold a friendship hostage based on faith or anything else.
There’s really no need to turn every little playground spat into some massive tragedy just because someone happened to mention God. Kids are going to fight over the most trivial things, make up, break up, and move on; today it's Tyler, tomorrow it's Jackson, and that's just life.
Besides, are you guys 100% certain your kid hasn't started badmouthing God in front of that "best friend," and maybe *that's* the actual reason the friendship ended?

Richard Perez3 said:Quincy:

Lawrence Torres56 I can't even begin to process what they just said. Seriously. It’s like some people just wake up and decide to be completely disconnected from reality. I'm sitting here staring at my screen, rubbing my temples, thinking, "Is this guy for real?" It's honestly exhausting dealing with this kind of nonsense. Every time I think we've hit rock bottom with these discussions, someone comes along and digs a hole right under us. Just... wow. Typical. Honestly, it’s not even an insult. It’s just a massive red flag showing exactly what kind of people he hangs out with.👍 And besides, do you guys seriously think kids in school are actually sitting around talking about religious stuff? Like, give me a break. It’s all video games and crushes. That's it. 😍

Look, it’s always a mess when a friend suddenly turns on you like that. It's tough, I get it. But honestly? Most of the time, they’re just acting out because of all that stupid stuff they were raised with. It's just human stupidity, passed down from parents to kids. Typical.
Yeah, they’re talking. You wouldn't think so just looking at them, but they're definitely talking.

I don't know about all this, but I certainly am not raising my kid to obsess over fake friendships, nor am I teaching them to feel like they need to hang out with bullies who use blackmail as a social tool. Thank God for small mercies, right?

Plus, I’m driving my kid to school every single day, picking up a bunch of other kids along the way too, and honestly, I have never once heard them discussing religion, let alone judging someone because they didn't show up to Sunday service or aren't religious. There are kids of all different faiths—and even little atheists—in that group.
So, if the kids in your circle *are* actually talking about faith, shouldn't that be even more reason for you parents to sit them down and explain that it doesn't matter if they aren't believers? Why should they feel any shame over it?

nimblelynx7 said:You're right on that point, but it’s never that simple when it’s your own flesh and blood. The Church knows exactly how to exploit that, which is why they play the games they do.

Believe it or not, the church isn't the one pulling the strings here; it's pure politics. Honestly, it's not even that hard to explain things clearly to a kid, provided you actually have the willpower to do it.

rowdypanther12 said:I don't know, maybe it's just me being silly, but saying "I won't play with you because you don't believe in God and you're going to hell" could definitely be taken as an insult 🤔

But honestly, is that even an insult? Isn't it more like a clear sign of what kind of friends you actually have around you? 👍

Plus, do you guys seriously think kids at school are sitting around debating theology, or are they actually talking about video games and crushes? 😍

granitewolf20 said:Look, it’s not the same thing every single day.
One day someone’s gonna laugh at them for being a target, and the next, they’ll just head home and break down in tears.
At the end of the day, parents can't just manufacture a kid's personality for them. 🤷
And what am I supposed to tell her? That hell isn't real? Telling her that doesn't exactly guarantee she won't feel insulted or hurt by what happened.

How is a kid even supposed to distinguish between something meant for someone else and an actual insult directed at them?

Susan James said:I totally see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's quite that black and white.
When it comes to teenagers, it’s an ongoing process of learning, and it hits its peak during those school years.
The examples kids see around them—no matter how painful they might be—actually serve as valuable lessons. It gives them a chance to realize what's happening and teaches them how to stand up for themselves.

BUT when kids first start elementary school around age seven, everything is new. They're meeting classmates for the first time and just want to fit in so they can make it through the next eight years. In those early stages, it isn't nearly as simple as it sounds.
Plus, you often hear kids in religious classes saying things to their non-religious peers that they don't even fully grasp themselves.

From my many years of working directly with children, I've noticed that the kids in religious classes are actually more likely to tease the ones who aren't, rather than the other way around. Statistically speaking, it makes sense since there are usually more students in those programs.

It is much easier to step in and handle bullying over physical stuff—like weight, glasses, clothing, or even family struggles like a parent struggling with addiction... tangible things you can address. It's much harder to deal with a kid being teased because they'll "go to hell" for skipping religious class, or won't get straight A's because they aren't following certain doctrines (concepts that even the religious kids don't fully understand yet).

And it doesn't even have to be direct teasing. Sometimes, kids will talk about the "Holy Spirit" helping them study, and they'll share that with a friend in a non-religious class—maybe with good intentions, or maybe just out of typical childhood curiosity. Suddenly, that other kid is left wondering what's going to happen to them, even though they have no idea what the Holy Spirit even is.

Do we really need this kind of dynamic for any child at the very beginning of their schooling?

You’re mistaken there; if you explain to your little one early on that our family doesn't subscribe to the whole God and devil thing, then the concept of hell carries absolutely zero weight for them. Kids at seven years old don't have a clue what hell even is, so naturally, they haven't developed any fear of it... fear, just like hatred, is something we parents instill in them.
We are believers, and my kid goes to religious ed, so if I ever bring up hell or burning, they’ll probably just laugh in my face—not because they’re religious, but because we never planted that seed of fear in them to begin with.

Bullying isn't really about whether a kid is religious or not; it’s about how they were raised. Someone who mocks a peer for skipping religious ed would just as easily mock them for having a blue pencil instead of a red one or using X instead of Y.

Besides, kids today are all over the place with after-school activities, everyone learns differently, and they all have different knowledge bases and grades, yet they don't sit there worrying about what's going to happen to them just because their classmate knows something they don't... I’ve certainly never noticed that being a burden on them... so, I really don't get why they’d suddenly start stressing over some Holy Spirit they don't believe in.

And, if we’re actually asking whether any kid needs this at the start of school, maybe we parents should be asking ourselves if any kid needs our own frustrations, our hate, our intolerance, and our prejudices... etcetera, etcetera. Where does it end? What are we actually teaching them? Even if you wiped religious ed from the schools tomorrow, none of this would vanish; it would just shift to something else, like T-shirts, hairstyles, or hair ties... and what have we actually accomplished?