The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Has Defined

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Has Defined The Core Obj

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has defined the core objectives of “Personal Responsibility” as the ability to connect choices, actions, and consequences of ethical decision-making. For this assignment, I have chosen to assume the role of the Texas Lieutenant Governor. I selected this office because the Lieutenant Governor plays a crucial role in shaping legislative priorities and has influence over a wide range of policy issues that affect the state's residents. The primary issue I would address in this role pertains to improving access to higher education for underserved communities in Texas. My goal is to enact policies that promote equitable educational opportunities and reduce disparities among various socioeconomic groups.

In dealing with this issue, I see two primary options. The first option involves implementing targeted scholarship programs and financial aid initiatives to assist students from underserved backgrounds. The second option would be to collaborate with educational institutions and community organizations to develop mentorship and support programs aimed at increasing college enrollment and retention rates among these populations. Both options aim to enhance access to higher education but differ in approach, one focusing on financial assistance and the other on community engagement and support structures.

Each option offers distinct advantages. The targeted scholarship and financial aid program can provide immediate relief to students who face economic barriers, thus increasing their likelihood of enrolling and completing higher education. This approach directly addresses the affordability gap and can have a rapid impact on enrollment figures. Conversely, developing mentorship and support programs fosters a long-term change by empowering students through guidance, encouragement, and resource networks. These programs can build a sustainable pipeline of students prepared and motivated to pursue higher education, which can lead to higher retention and success rates over time.

However, each approach also has disadvantages. The financial aid programs require significant budget allocations and could be limited by funding constraints, potentially making their impact inconsistent or short-lived if not sustained. Additionally, financial assistance alone may not address underlying issues such as lack of academic preparation or social barriers. On the other hand, mentorship and support programs demand ongoing organizational commitment, resources, and partnerships, which can be challenging to establish and maintain. These programs may also take longer to show measurable results and might not fully resolve the immediate financial obstacles faced by prospective students.

After evaluating the advantages and disadvantages, I would choose to implement a combined approach that incorporates both targeted financial aid and comprehensive mentorship programs. This integrated strategy aligns with ethical decision-making principles by addressing immediate needs while fostering long-term growth and empowerment. By providing financial support, I can reduce economic barriers, while mentorship programs can build the necessary skills, confidence, and community support to sustain student success. This choice reflects a commitment to personal responsibility—encouraging individuals to make informed decisions through accessible resources and guidance—and emphasizes ethical considerations by promoting equity and inclusivity within Texas higher education. This holistic approach underscores the importance of connecting choices, actions, and consequences to create ethical and effective solutions for improving educational access.

References

  • Hunt, L. M. (2013). Educational Equity: Addressing disparities in higher education. Journal of Educational Policy, 28(3), 295-312.
  • Johnson, R., & Lee, S. (2020). Strategies for increasing college access among underserved communities. Higher Education Review, 52(4), 22-39.
  • Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2021). Texas higher education strategic plan: 2030. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
  • Perna, L. W. (2010). Understanding the role of financial aid in increasing college access and success. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 40(3), 5-16.
  • Smith, A., & Williams, K. (2018). Mentoring programs as a tool for higher education equity. Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 157-172.
  • Reynolds, L., & Thompson, M. (2019). Community engagement and higher education: Building pathways for underserved students. Community College Journal, 45(1), 34-45.
  • Swail, W. S. (2006). Retaining minority students in higher education: Challenges and strategies. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 60-64.
  • National Conference of State Legislatures. (2022). State efforts to improve college affordability and access. NCSL Reports.
  • Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-effectiveness of programs for disadvantaged students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 273-291.
  • Williams, T. R. (2017). Ethical decision-making in public policy: A framework for educators. Journal of Public Administration, 53(4), 563-578.

Related Assignments