In reading through the policies stated here, many of the objectives are vaguely worded. The concern that I have with such policies is that they could be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, and some of those interpretations could compel students to engage in forms of speech either verbal or written that does not align with their beliefs. As you are aware, the First Amendment prevents the government from constructing policies that are so vague that they could encourage individual censorship of speech that is legal. Any policy that limits speech must be narrowly tailored in such a way that it does not create a chilling effect on speech that is otherwise protected by law. Further, the First Amendment protects from compelled forms of speech. This takes place when a state agency forces an individual to make statements that go against their own personal  beliefs and values. Given the vague wording of these objectives, the possibility that they could be interpreted by faculty to compel students to make claims and either written or verbal that go against their own views,  I have concerns that these kinds of objectives will lead to an abuse of a student's First Amendment rights. Given that the objectives could have real world consequences such as preventing a child from graduation should they not agree with the "skills" mentioned or a teacher's application of those skills, I could see any child in the Commonwealth as having legal standing based on First Amendment grounds. As you are aware the Supreme Court under Tinker has clearly stated that students don't leave their First Amendment Rights at the schoolhouse door.