Louisiana lawmakers to consider a flat rate for TOPS scholarships
A photo of Keeny Hall at Louisiana Tech University from September 2016. (Creative Commons license)
The Louisiana Legislature will consider creating a flat rate for TOPS program scholarships, regardless of what school students attend. It would increase the out of pocket costs for LSU and University of New Orleans students.
Currently, the state sets the TOPS award amount that each university receives. House Bill 77 by Rep. Chris Turner, R-Ruston, would decouple those rates from university tuition, meaning students would have to pay more out of pocket to attend more expensive universities but pay less at regional universities such as Nicholls and McNeese. It would create a significant decrease in revenue for LSU and UNO.
Turner's bill would also create a new award level that would provide additional money to students who earn at least a 3.5 grade point average and a 31 out of 36 on the ACT college admissions test.
If Turner's bill passes, the base-level amount, which approximately half of Louisiana TOPS students receive, would be $6,000 annually, TOPS Performance students, who have at least a 3.25 GPA and a 23 ACT score, would receive $6,500. TOPS Honors students, who have at least a 3.5 GPA and a 27 ACT score, would receive $9,000. The bill's proposed TOPS Excellence award, the new highest amount, would be $12,000.
Because the current base TOPS level is above $6,500 at LSU and UNO, both institutions could lose millions in state funding under Turner's plan, while most other schools in the state would see a boost. LSU's nursing programs would also see a funding loss under the bill.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Turner said he and coauthor, House Education Chairwoman Rep. Laurie Schlegel, R-Metairie, worked with some of the state's universities and the Board of Regents on the bill, which he said was intended to create fairness between the universities and to help keep high-performing students in the state.
'It wasn't fair to give this university more and not the other one,' Turner said in an interview. 'All the institutions would be treated equally.'
The Taylor Opportunity Program for Students, more commonly known as TOPS, is a merit-based scholarship program that helps Louisiana students attend in-state schools.
Turner said he believed the bill would hurt LSU on the lower end, but that it would make up its loss through the new Excellence award amount. But LSU's main campus has nearly 10,000 students who would lose TOPS funding under the bill and only a small number of students who would qualify for Excellence.
Any potential loss in funding would hit UNO particularly hard as it grapples with a budget crisis and looks to cut millions from its budget.
Students currently enrolled at LSU and UNO would begin to pay more out of pocket for the fall semester if the bill passes in its current form. The proposal is expected to face staunch opposition, because of its impact on LSU and UNO and an overall cost increase for TOPS.
Gov. Jeff Landry has pushed for a standstill budget after voters rejected Amendment 2 in the March 29 election. It would have moved hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue from state savings accounts into Louisiana's general fund for lawmakers to spend.
For some schools with lower tuition and fees, the new award amounts would create an excess for students. Under present law, that money would be applied to students' room and board expenses, which typically are paid out of pocket. But under a new law the legislature approved last year, schools have complete autonomy to raise their fees, meaning they could increase the cost of attendance to meet the new award amount — and increase their revenues.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rough sleeping to be decriminalised in England and Wales
Rough sleeping will be decriminalised next year under government plans to scrap a 200-year-old law. Ministers are planning to scrap the Vagrancy Act, which outlaws rough sleeping in England and Wales. The law was introduced in 1824 to deal with rising homelessness, but Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has called it "cruel and outdated". The government's plan includes new legislation which will target crimes such as organised begging by gangs and trespassing, a statement said. Rayner, who is also housing secretary, said Labour was "drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society". "No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again," she said. The number of prosecutions and convictions under the 1824 act has declined over the past decade. According to government statistics, there were a total of 79 prosecutions and 59 convictions for offences related to rough sleeping in 2023 - down from a peak of 1,050 and 810 respectively in 2011. Repealing the Vagrancy Act was first announced in 2022 by the previous Conservative government. It had wanted to pass alternative legislation first, but this did not happen before the general election was called last year. The party's Criminal Justice Bill would have allowed police to move on "nuisance" rough sleepers and fine them if they did not comply. The Labour government said it plans to replace the Vagrancy Act with "targeted measures" that will "ensure police have the powers they need to keep communities safe". These measures, which will be introduced through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, will include new offences of facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime. Homeless charities have long called for the Vagrancy Act to be scrapped. Crisis chief executive Matt Downie said: "This is a landmark moment that will change lives and prevent thousands of people from being pushed into the shadows, away from safety." He praised the government for having "shown such principled leadership in scrapping this pernicious Act". He said: "We hope this signals a completely different approach to helping people forced onto the streets and clears the way for a positive agenda that is about supporting people who desperately want to move on in life and fulfil their potential." People living on London's streets rises by 26% Pressure grows over rough sleeping clampdown


New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Apartment broker fee ban to begin Wednesday after federal judge nixes suit to stop the new NYC law
The city's new law banning broker fees will go into effect tomorrow, after a federal judge shot down a real estate lobby lawsuit to block the ban. Judge Ronnie Abrams ruled Tuesday that a federal lawsuit challenging the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act was mostly rooted in policy disagreements — not constitutional questions. 3 A new law banning broker fees starts tomorrow after a federal judge tossed a last-minute effort to pause the ban. Helayne Seidman 'Plaintiffs' discontentment with the Act, however, stems not from its effects on their constitutional rights, but from a fundamental disagreement with its underlying policy,' Abrams ruled. Her decision tossed all but one claim from the lawsuit, and denied a request to pause the law as the case plays out. The FARE Act — passed in City Council with a veto-proof majority of 42-8 on Nov. 13 — prohibits agents representing property owners from charging prospective renters a 'broker fee.' 3 The Real Estate Board of New York and other groups claimed that banning broker fees would 'destroy' the rental market, according to their suit. Helayne Seidman The lawsuit, filed a month later by the Real Estate Board of New York, a broker's association and various property groups, claimed that banning broker fees would 'destroy' the rental market. Abrams said the suit was asking 'the court to act as a 'superlegislature'' to nix laws they disagree with. 'The court declines that invitation,' Abrams wrote, adding that the 'remedy is through the political process, not in court.' 3 Judge Ronnie Abrams said the suit was asking 'the court to act as a 'superlegislature'' to nix laws they disagree with. Kbarnofsky/Wikipedia But while the judge said the act could result in higher prices for landlords, they were better positioned to absorb the cost by increasing rents. 'Tenants, by contrast, cannot pass the cost of brokers' fees to landlords,' she wrote. REBNY President James Whelan said he was 'disappointed' that their motion to pause the law was kiboshed. 'New Yorkers will soon realize the negative impacts of the FARE Act when listings become scarce, and rents rise. We will continue to litigate this case as well as explore our avenues for appeal.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court partially invalidates state election rules
The Brief Georgia Supreme Court strikes down four state election rules, citing overreach by the State Election Board. Court rules organizational plaintiffs lack standing; individual voters Turner and Hall can challenge. Chief Justice highlights nondelegation doctrine to prevent legislative power transfer to agencies. ATLANTA - In a significant ruling, the Georgia Supreme Court has invalidated four of seven state election rules approved by the State Election Board before the November 2024 general election. Additionally, it found that two of the remaining rules could not be considered during the appeal. PREVIOUS STORY: Georgia Supreme Court considering if judge was right to block State Election Board rules The three-person Republican majority on the State Election Board, which was praised by then-former President Donald Trump during a rally in Atlanta in August, voted to adopt multiple rules in August and September 2024 over the objections of the board's lone Democrat and the nonpartisan chair. What we know The decision, which partially affirms, reverses, and vacates a previous ruling by the Fulton County Superior Court, sends the case back to the trial court for further review. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox had ruled in mid-October that 7 of the rules were "illegal, unconstitutional and void." The rules in question included requirements for county election boards to conduct "reasonable inquiries" before certifying election results, hand-counting ballots, daily reporting of vote totals, expanded access for poll watchers, photo ID requirements for absentee ballot drop-offs, and video surveillance of drop boxes. The Court found that only the video surveillance rule was valid, while the others exceeded the State Election Board's authority. The underlying lawsuit, brought by Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. and individuals Scot Turner and James Hall, argued that the 7 rules contradicted the state Election Code. RELATED STORY: Georgia election battle: Parties clash in court over controversial voting rules The State, along with the Republican National Committee, appealed, questioning the plaintiffs' legal standing. The court heard oral arguments in Cartersville on March 19. The Court concluded that organizational plaintiffs (Eternal Vigilance and Georgia State Conference of the NAACP) lacked standing, but individual voters Turner and Hall did have standing. What they're saying Chief Justice Nels S.D. Peterson, in a unanimous opinion, emphasized the importance of the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents the transfer of legislative power to administrative agencies. The Court's decision underscores the need for clear statutory authority in rule-making and highlights the ongoing debate over election integrity and governance in Georgia. Click to open this PDF in a new window.