 |
| 21-July-2026 |
The Department of Education has no Guidelines on how this right is to be processed, and given practical application on the ground, in schools. Children are left sitting in the religion class and no other subject is offered.
The Department of Education, schools and the WRC treat this Constitutional right as an administrative issue. A Workplace Relations Commission case under the Equal Status Act is a good example of this.
A student, who was non-religious, did not want to participate in religion classes. She attended her only local publicly funded school. The parents had no alternative other than to send all of their children to this school.
Her parent exercised the Constitutional (Art44.2.4) and statutory right (S.30.2(e) Education Act 1998) for the child not to attend religious instruction.
The school refused to allow her to participate in alternative classes while religion classes were taking place. The parent complained to the WRC that, because of this, she was receiving an inferior education.
Astonishingly, the WRC accepted the school’s argument that providing alternative classes for students who opted out of religion might potentially cause chaos within the school.
It also suggested that offering another subject to a child who opted out of religion could potentially discriminate against students who attended religious classes, because those students would not receive the same extra tuition.
The WRC stated that:
However, what could potentially be considered discriminatory would be if the Respondent offered extra tuition in a different subject to a student who opted out of religion but refused to provide additional tuition to a student who chose to attend religious classes on the grounds of their belief.
This difference in treatment based on students’ choices regarding religious education could raise concerns of discrimination under the Equal Status Act as the Respondent’s representative correctly highlighted.
Specifically, if the Respondent allowed C to participate in additional history classes due to her decision not to study religion, then it could be argued that E has a valid claim of discrimination because she chose to study religion but was not given the same opportunity for extra history classes.
This reasoning illustrates the problem. The child who opts out is not seeking an advantage. She is seeking equal access to education during the school day, while exercising a right grounded in freedom of conscience and belief.
Instead, the child was left sitting in the religion class and no supervision was even provided outside the religion class. The WRC did not view this as discrimination.
Providing meaningful alternative instruction would remedy a disadvantage, not create an advantage.
This case shows the disrespect that the Department of Education, the WRC and schools have for the Constitutional rights of parents and their children. Our Constitutional rights are treated as an administrative issue, and when we complain it is viewed as seeking an advantage.
No comments