The government’s policy on relationships and sex education (RSE) has put schools in an “unnecessary and unforgivable” position, as it allows room for prejudices to “take root and be legitimised”, the head who faced down protests against LGBT-inclusive teaching has said.

Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson, who led her school to a legal victory against protestors last year, said the RSE policy and accompanying frequently asked questions devised by the Department for Education (DfE) contain “grey areas and mixed messages” that “were and still are exploited by people up and down the country”.

Ms Hewitt-Clarkson made the comments while proposing a motion at the NAHT school leaders’ union conference, which called on the national executive to “urgently work with the DfE” to update its guidance on RSE to make it clear that “one protected characteristic cannot be used to cause harm to another”.

Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson: Tes person of the year 2019

RSE update: How the new guidance may change your plans

Coronavirus: Schools can delay relationships and sex education

The head of Anderton Park Primary School in Birmingham said she “truly” believed the “painful protests” that targeted her school over its inclusive teaching happened “because of the grey areas and mixed messages in the DfE’s policy”.

She said the RSE policy is “scattered with reminders that schools must uphold the Equality Act and the public sector equality duty”, but singles out LGBT matters for “special consideration”, which is “surely...the opposite of equality and equity”.

The policy asks schools to think about the point at which they consider it “appropriate” to teach about LGBT relationships, but it “does not ask this question of appropriateness for any other of the protected characteristics”, she said.

The Birmingham head added that the wording in the government’s FAQs also creates “mixed messages”.

“It states in the policy that primary school children should know that marriage, both same-sex and opposite-sex, represents a formal and legally recognised commitment of two people which is intended to be lifelong. This is excellent and seems pretty clear,” she said.

“Yet, in the frequently asked questions, the wording is different from the policy - a grey area, mixed messages.

“In the frequently asked questions, it says pupils should be taught about the society in which they are growing up; pupils should receive teaching on the LGBT content during their school years.

“But then it says primary schools are strongly recommended to include LGBT content, strongly recommended to teach about other aspects of equality.”

She said school leaders “cannot and should not pick and choose the bits of the Equality Act that fit comfortably and leave out the ones that are more sensitive”.

“The DfE policy dedicates two paragraphs to LGBT - none of the other protected characteristics get this special treatment. It singles out LGBT for special consideration. Surely this is the opposite of equality and equity,” she said.

“There will be some families who think you should not be friends with or love someone from a different religion, or with a different skin colour or with a different heritage, or with a disability, for example. We as public servants can never be a part of tacit agreements with any of these prejudices or views.

“And yet the DfE policy seems to allow room for these prejudices to take root and be legitimised. The grey areas and mixed messages were and still are exploited by people up and down the country. It was an unnecessary and unforgivable position to put school leaders in.

“Many of us have been forced to argue our case and explain why all children of all ages should know some that people have two mummies or two daddies in the same way that we might say there are female doctors, black lawyers, disabled world champions.

“Individuals should not be fighting this battle. It was a battle that was won 10 years ago. The DfE should be clear that this is statutory, expected and lawful.

“It is not weakness to revisit and improve a policy; it is excellent leadership; it is strength. We must work with the DfE to change aspects of their policy and remove the possibility of such harm ever to be allowed to happen again.”

The motion was “overwhelmingly carried” at the conference.

The DfE has been approached for comment.