State lawmakers have until 6 p.m. today to address the state’s fiscal shortfall for the current fiscal year and to address more predicted for the next. We’ve read about various spending cuts and tax increases, though as this is written there were still many proposals being considered.

Whatever the outcome from the special session there will be more consideration about the state’s budget woes and among those efforts it seems clear will be adjustments to the popular TOPS state college scholarship program.

The Times-Picayune was reporting Tuesday morning that state lawmakers have already filed 16 proposals that would change TOPS for next year.

There has already been discussion and there is at least one bill already filed that would increase the qualification for TOPS to a 21 on the ACT score, up from the current 20, for students graduating in 2020.

If TOPS is going to be pruned, but if it’s going to remain a program based on performance and not need, then raising the ACT would seem reasonable.

Several sources report last year’s national average composite ACT score was 21, so Louisiana graduates can currently do less than average on the ACT yet still qualify for TOPS.

There are also proposals to raise the minimum grade point average for TOPS from 2.5 to 2.75, still less than a B average.

That too makes sense if the state needs to cut the overall cost of TOPS while still trying to incent high school students to work hard and take seriously their academic performance.

When TOPS was first introduced it was promoted as an incentive to students to improve their academic performance prior to going to college, requiring a minimum grade point average, requiring a minimum score on the ACT, requiring students take certain classes, like a foreign language.

If the students met the more rigorous requirements, they’d be eligible for TOPS to help offset the cost of attending college in the state.

It had the intended result with plenty of students, who along with their parents, paying more attention to the importance of those high school grades, saw them taking the more rigorous required courses, saw them working hard to get a better ACT score.

Bumping up the requirements for TOPS would seem a reasonable way to achieve some of the cost savings that are needed and would presumably also have the benefit of hopefully boosting student performance a bit as they stretch themselves to try to stay TOPS eligible.

It’d also seem less objectionable than other proposals that are calling for students who lose their TOPS eligibility to pay back all or a portion of the benefit they’d received on top of covering all their future education expenses on their own.

It is likely TOPS is going to be changed. Parents and students better follow the proposals closely and share their opinions with our elected representatives, so hopefully we can keep the best of this important state-backed academic reward program.

WILL CHAPMAN

PUBLISHER