This research study critically examines how key stakeholders in the CNS model conceptualise the CNS ethos and how school staff in one diverse primary school conceptualise and enact the CNS ethos. Semi-structured interviews were used to gather data as part of a qualitative, single case study methodology. The qualitative software programme NVivo was used to support data analysis processing. A theoretical framework comprising of both critical and liberal egalitarian theories from the interdisciplinary field of equality studies (e.g., Gramsci, 1971; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990; Baker et al., 2009; Ladson-Billings 1995;2014) was then applied to coded data. Critical analysis suggests that key stakeholders’ and school staff’s conceptualisations of the CNS ethos have evolved over time. Understandings have changed from religious-centric interpretations of the CNS ethos to broader egalitarian conceptualisations which are congruent with liberal forms of multicultural education. Analysis also suggests that areas of school life associated with ethos have broadened from a sole emphasis on the Patron’s Curriculum (Goodness Me! Goodness You!) to multiple aspects of school life. Analysis indicates conflicting perspectives on the continued use of the term ‘multi-denominational’ as a descriptor for the CNS model given its religious connotations. While enactments of the CNS ethos are broadly reflective of conceptualisations, there are also notable dissonant elements. Consistent with liberal forms of multicultural education, in enacting the CNS ethos, significant efforts are made by teachers to ensure that both the formal and hidden curricula are reflective of the school’s diverse community. Teachers employ democratic pedagogies which draw on the children’s cultural/linguistic/religious/belief knowledge and lived experiences. School leaders actively address the barriers faced by minoritised parents in engaging with school life. They encourage parents from minoritised religious and ethnic groups to participate on various democratic and decision-making fora (e.g., Parent Association, Board of Management, ethos-related policy committees). However, findings also indicate that the habitus and various forms of capital possessed by minoritised parents from middle-class, highly educated backgrounds are valued over those of parents from working class backgrounds from either dominant or minoritised groups. Although the school endeavours to affirm diversity, there is evidence of the hierarchisation of the diversity variables recognised and affirmed in the classroom. While the habitus of minoritised religious/belief, linguistic and cultural groups are affirmed, this is less so the case for members of the LGBTQ+ community and children from working class backgrounds. Responses to LGBTQ+ identities are particularly constrained due to the significant influence parents from conservative religious backgrounds have on the school’s ethos-related curricula and policies. This can be seen as problematic as it results in a dissonance between the school’s espoused egalitarian ethos and current practices in responding to some forms of diversity. Several policy recommendations are suggested to address issues raised in the study.