Defining Merit: The Impact of Award
Structure on the Distribution of Merit Aid
By Jeffery P. Kash and Scott Lasley
Jeffrey P. Kash is Assistant
The Kentucky Education Excellence Scholarship (KEES) is a merit-based scholarship
Professor for the
program intended to increase college access, long-term academic commitment, and
Department of Political
retention of top students within the state. KEES uses a heavily graduated award structure
Science at Western
and both high school grade point average and standardized test scores to establish award
Kentucky University.
amounts. Using school-level data, this study applied means tests, correlation, and
multivariate analysis to examine the relationship between the demographic composition
Scott Lasley is Associate
of high schools and the amount and number of KEES awards received. KEES was found
Professor for the
to be regressive, and that regressivity is compounded by its graduated structure. Students
Department of Political
from higher socioeconomic status schools, from schools with more Caucasian students, or
Science at Western
from schools with more females received a higher proportion of KEES awards, in larger
Kentucky University.
amounts, than those from other schools. The source of KEES funding was also found to be
The authors would like to
regressive: the more successful the program, the greater the strain on its static lottery
thank Angela Brown for her
revenue funding. Because awards are not indexed to inflation, their impact on college
help with data collection.
affordability diminishes as education costs rise. Recommended steps for addressing
regressivity in the KEES program, including clearly defining the program’s primary goal
and introducing a need-based component, are discussed.
I
n April 1998, the Commonwealth of Kentucky joined a growing list of states
that have a lottery-funded, broad-based merit scholarship program. Senate Bill
21 enacted by the Kentucky General Assembly established the Kentucky
Educational Excellence Scholarship (KEES). The legislature designated a portion
of state lottery revenues to fund this merit-based scholarship. Explaining the
general goals of the program, the bill states:
“The general assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky hereby declares that the best
interest of the Commonwealth mandates that financial assistance be provided to ensure
access for Kentucky citizens to public and private postsecondary education at the
postsecondary educational institutions of the Commonwealth. It is the intent and
purpose of the General Assembly that the enactment of Sections 1 to 6 of this Act shall be
constructed as a long term financial commitment to postsecondary education…”
In addition to the explicit goals of ensuring access and providing a symbolic,
long-term commitment to postsecondary education, the sponsors of KEES argue
that the scholarships also serve as a mechanism for keeping talented students in
the state (KLTPRC, 2003; Hopkins, 2004).
Our study uses school-level data to evaluate how the award structure of KEES
impacts the program’s ability to satisfy the program’s goals of increased access,
long-term commitment, and retention of top students. It takes into account how a
changing policy environment defined by static lottery revenues coupled with the
growing number of KEES-eligible students affects the scholarship’s ability to meet
these goals. By examining the relationship between the demographic composition
of high schools—particularly in terms of socioeconomic status, race, and gender—
and the amount and number of KEES awards received, we analyze how a heavily
graduated award structure impacts the distribution of the program funds.
30 Journal of Student Financial Aid Volume 39 • Number 1 • 2009
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48