Louisiana House Bill HB348

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12

Caption

Provides relative to Taylor Opportunity Program for students awards when insufficient money to fund all eligible students is appropriated (OR NO IMPACT GF EX See Note)

Impact

The legislative change directly impacts how student financial assistance is provided, especially in times of budget constraints. The bill's focus on test scores as the primary criterion for awarding scholarships could lead to changes in who qualifies for financial aid under the TOPS program. By eliminating consideration of family income in the initial cut of award winners, the law may raise questions about accessibility for lower-income students whose families may not contribute as much to their education costs.

Summary

House Bill 348 introduces amendments to the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS) awards, particularly focusing on the allocation process when insufficient funds are appropriated by the legislature. The bill establishes a more streamlined method for reducing the number of awarded scholarships, specifying that the reduction will be based solely on students' scores from either the American College Test (ACT) or the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). This modification aims to create a fairer system, removing the prior requirement that also considered a family's ability to pay based on expected contributions, which may have complicated the award allocation process.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 348 appears to reflect both concern and support among different stakeholder groups. Proponents argue that focusing solely on test scores increases meritocracy within the scholarship allocation process, thereby ensuring that students who achieve high scores are prioritized for funding. Conversely, opponents may view this shift as potentially disadvantageous for low-income students, who might be more reliant on holistic measures of eligibility that included family income as a factor for receiving support.

Contention

Notable points of contention revolve around the implications of valuing standardized test results over other criteria that reflect a student's financial need or socio-economic background. Critics of the bill may argue that it simplifies a complex issue of educational accessibility and equity. Additionally, concerns about the adequacy of future funding for TOPS awards remain, especially as the funding needs might fluctuate year over year based on state appropriations.