This seems to me to send a mixed message:

If this means that they are willing to affirm boys being "manly, rough, and outgoing" if that's how the boys choose to behave, then I would believe that it's "an opportunity for them to be whoever they want to be." But if they deter boys from behaving in this manner when they choose to act in that manner, I don't see how it's accomplishing the desired goal.

It's a pilot project.

We've got a better one underway here.

Outside of thespian culture, there is reluctance and resistance to the idea that an individual can be both girlie and masculine regardless of gender.

Personality should have never been tied in to biology. It is frustrating to realize that on a societal level, there have only been a few brief eras in history in where this sort of flexibility was commonplace.

Tenets: Elizabethan England, Kabuki/Noh, city-state Greece. Of course, islands of culture in which this isn't threatened do exist globally. Take the Thai ladyboy phenomenon and the Chinese disregard for biology as a personality base. Some of the most prominent dragon ladies in history have actually been male (Cixi, for instance...), and some of the dominant male historical figures were actually female.

"We eat everything." The Corruptor.