Louisiana lawmakers to consider a flat rate for TOPS scholarships
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
a day ago
- Yahoo
Labour Can't Decide What It's Doing With The Internet
Labour seems to be in two minds over how to handle the internet. While Keir Starmer's comms team is now briefing influencers on government policies, his ministers are cracking down on harmful online content – and facing accusations of mass censorship at the same time. On Thursday afternoon, the prime minister will be hosting a reception for up to 90 influencers in Downing Street, who reportedly have a combined following of a quarter of a billion followers and have already been chatting to No.10 over the last year. Invitees allegedly include cookbook author Chetna Makan and former Love Island contestant now anti-revenge porn campaigner Georgia Harrison, along with other TikTok stars and YouTubers. This move has been criticised and praised in equal measure. While a handful of online users claim no serious influencer would want to be associated with this government, some political pundits claim it is a sign that Downing Street is finally getting with the 21st Century. And that may be true: Ofcom recently found 82% of 16 to 24-year-olds use social media for news, along with 28% of people aged over 55. This online-first attitude also seems to be rewarding their largest electoral threat, Nigel Farage, who has 1.3 million followers on TikTok and is currently leading in the opinion polls by a healthy margin. But, at the same time, the government has just rolled out its Online Safety Act, rather undermining their new approach to the web, as critics have pointed out. Meant to protect children by putting age restrictions on various sites, the legislation has created an uproar in some quarters over fears it would create mass censorship and political debate – while also making it harder to monitor online risks for kids. That's because there's been a huge uptick in the use of virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow people to circumvent the age restrictions by masking a user's identity. Data from the Age Verification Providers Association also found an additional five million online age checks a day are being carried out because of the new legislation. Fears that the Act is too broad and vague in its definitions of 'harmful content' have fuelled further concerns that it will force adults to share personal data with global porn sites – paving the way for mass data breaches in a dangerous overreach. Then there's the ramifications that come with putting up barriers online. Starmer even had to laugh off warnings from Donald Trump earlier this week over fears the new law would limit access to his website, Truth Social. Reform UK have leapt on the opportunity to attack Labour, claiming it would completely tear up the legislation – although the party has confirmed it has no new ideas to protect children from the worst corners of the internet. Still, their debate spiralled out of control when the technology secretary Peter Kyle claimed Farage's criticism indicated he would have been on the same side as the late prolific sexual predator Jimmy Savile. The Reform UK leader has since asked for an apology. Of course, plenty of people are in favour of the legislation, which has been quietly worked on by successive governments. The suicide prevention group, the Molly Rose Foundation, noted: 'The Online Safety Act will help save young lives.' The organisation's CEO Andy Burrows pointed out there has been strong cross-party consensus to protect children online in the past. Scrapping it altogether would actually 'go against what Reform voters think,' he told LBC, noting that more than seven in 10 people who voted Reform at the last election want to keep and even strengthen the Act. Meanwhile, Chris Sherwood from the charity NPSCC wrote in PoliticsHome that 'it's deeply concerning to see the rhetoric around the Online Safety Act shift toward loss of free expression.' The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology told HuffPost UK: 'The Online Safety Act is the biggest step change in children's online safety since the internet began. 'It protects young people from harmful content and holds platforms and tech companies to account. 'This is about creating a safer internet – not censoring it – where children can explore, learn and connect without fear of what's behind the next swipe.' But can Labour really expect a positive reception by using influencers to spread its message while fending off accusations of censorship? Only time will tell if the government can have its cake and eat it too. Related... If You Think Adolescence Is Just About Online Incel Groups, You Missed The Point This 1 Hidden iPhone Feature Could Instantly Make Your Online Data Safer – And It's So Easy To Activate Sorry, The Emoji-Over-Face Parents Might Be Right About Online Privacy


Tom's Guide
a day ago
- Tom's Guide
Will the UK government ban VPNs?
With the passing of the Online Safety Act on July 25, 2025, sites now need to verify UK users' ages if they wish to access content that has been deemed adult. Due to the manifold security and privacy concerns raised by the act, UK residents have started to find various ways to avoid having to submit personal information to verify their age, including using the best VPNs. This is because a VPN allows you to simply connect to a overseas server from within the UK and avoid age checks altogether. However, the rise in demand for VPNs has led some to fear that they will be next on the legislative chopping block – but is there any truth to this? NordVPN: our top-rated VPN overallFrom our testing, we consider NordVPN to be the best VPN for most people. This is down to its rock-solid security and privacy, excellent speeds and great unblocking performance. Prices start from £2.31 / $2.91 per month for a two-year subscription, which includes an exclusive four months free for Tom's Guide readers. Plus, you can get an Amazon gift card worth up to £50 / $50 if you sign up for NordVPN's Plus or Complete memberships. A 30-day money-back guarantee applies to all subscriptions. Due to one of the key features of VPNs being the ability to mimic connecting from another country (see our list of best Netflix VPNs to see what this looks like in action), there is some concern that the Labour government will clamp down on them. Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham, stated in 2022 regarding VPNs and the Online Safety Act that "there is a real threat that the use of virtual private networks – VPNs – could undermine the effectiveness of these measures." She went on to suggest that "If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems." In a post on X on July 28th, Champion responded to news of VPNs topping App Store charts by saying "I did warn the last government this would happen." Despite this, the Labour government does not appear to be considering banning VPNs. While Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, stated via X that those that oppose the Online Safety Act are "on the side of predators," he also told Sky News that there were currently no plans to ban VPNs. He did, however, state that he would be looking "very closely" at their use as, according to Kyle, 'the vast majority of adults in [the UK]' were abiding by the Act's guidelines. Were the UK to attempt to ban VPNs, it would join the likes of China, Iran, and Turkmenistan, among others, all of whom have either banned or restricted the use of VPNs due to their ability to circumvent censorship and content restrictions. However, it is still possible to access VPNs in these countries, despite the attempted bans. Obfuscation using Shadowsocks, or simply using newer servers that have not yet been blacklisted, can allow for connections. Governments are also unable to directly regulate VPN providers that are based outside their jurisdiction. The infeasibility of blocking VPNs has not stopped other countries from trying, however. This can make life more difficult for VPN users, not to mention the chaos that would likely occur due to VPNs being incredibly common among business users. China is at the forefront of internet surveillance and censorship, and has some of the strictest VPN laws, but it still cannot achieve total victory over VPNs – particularly those focused on privacy. Let us assume that the UK government does decide to block VPNs. While this would likely be ineffectual, due to the ability to completely anonymously pay for a VPN with cryptocurrency – or in the case of Mullvad and Proton VPN, with cash – and the level of obfuscation VPNs use to avoid detection, it would still set an extremely dangerous precedent. The UK is already a world leader in mass surveillance, thanks to GCHQ and NSA collaboration. Putting privacy even further out of reach of the masses would be a move that should set alarm bells ringing in all of our heads. The UK banning VPNs is ultimately a fairly unlikely outcome. However, we cannot be certain that VPNs won't end up in the government's firing line eventually. Privacy is not, and should never become, a crime. We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example: 1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service). 2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad. We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.


Fox News
2 days ago
- Fox News
The trade deal countdown is on
Fox News national correspondent Griff Jenkins reports on the upcoming trade deal deadlines and the 'Pelosi Act' on 'Special Report.'