Merit Aid and the Politics of Education (review)

Merit Aid and the Politics of Education is a timely and relevant contribution to the study of state financial aid policy and higher education governance. Eric Ness provides an excellent synthesis of the political process that three states (New Mexico, West Virginia, and Tennessee) went through when designing their merit-based scholarship programs. Ness’s primary purpose in this book is to understand how states determine eligibility for merit-based scholarships. Additionally, he examines the extent to which three theoretical frameworks explain the political process that occurred when these states crafted their merit aid policies.

Since Georgia began the nation’s first broad-based merit aid program in 1993, 14 states have established similar programs (p. 163). The emergence of state merit aid programs has attracted considerable attention in financial aid policy research circles. This book is a natural complement to the existing body of research on state merit aid because it provides readers with the rich qualitative context that has not been fully examined by higher education policy scholars. Ness uses a case study research design including interviews with such policy actors as governors, state legislators, policy analysts, and higher education officials to provide information on the behind-the-scenes machinations that make merit aid programs such a popular yet contentious financial aid issue.

The book begins with an introduction to three policy frameworks that provide a lens for looking at state higher education policy: advocacy coalition, multiple streams, and electoral connection. Advocacy coalition theory is based on the concept that actors coalesce around a political issue if the issue aligns with their own core political beliefs; coalitions will change when external factors (such as public opinion and elections) bring about change. In New Mexico and West Virginia, this framework provides an insightful look at how newly elected governors were able to shepherd merit aid programs through the legislature. As a result of shifts in coalitions and political parties, advocates of merit aid scholarships were able to move their policy initiatives forward.

The multiple streams framework provides the most compelling analysis in each case study, as it explains how “policy entrepreneurs” (i.e., ambitious legislators or governors seeking reelection) often sell contentious policy proposals by coupling them with proposals that serve a higher public purpose. In Tennessee and West Virginia, for example, elected officials coupled contentious state lotteries and gaming machines to popular merit scholarship programs to legitimize state-sanctioned gambling. As explained by one state legislator, “Who’s going to be against providing college education to A/B students of middle-class families? I mean, no one’s against that.” It appears that legislators are using merit aid as a way to manipulate public opinion to shepherd their pet projects through the legislature.

The electoral connection framework also gives insight into the decision-making process, as it explains how officials make decisions that maximize their chances to get reelected, or that seek to serve their constituents’ best interests. In Tennessee, the legislative Black Caucus lobbied to change the merit scholarship eligibility requirements to benefit students from their own districts. This framework helps explain how a “well-greased policy process” (p. 141) can be interrupted by elected officials who seek to connect policies to their constituents’ best interests.

The book provides useful insights into the reasons policymakers in several states have enacted merit-based financial aid policies. As a result, it is an important contribution to our understanding of the rise of merit aid programs. This volume is especially interesting because of the growing concern among many policy advocates that states are not doing enough to adequately support the financial needs of low-income and minority students. In recent years, researchers have found that broad-based merit aid programs disproportionately benefit White and middle- to upper-income students who would have likely gone to college anyway without assistance from the state (Heller & Marin, 2002).

Ness’s book does not attempt to address whether states should invest in merit-based...