Modeling Assumptions Clash with the Real World: Transparency, Equity, and Community Challenges for Student Assignment Algorithms

Across the United States, a growing number of school districts are turning to matching algorithms to assign students to public schools. The designers of these algorithms aimed to promote values such as transparency, equity, and community in the process. However, school districts have encountered practical challenges in their deployment. In fact, San Francisco Unified School District voted to stop using and completely redesign their student assignment algorithm because it was frustrating for families and it was not promoting educational equity in practice. We analyze this system using a Value Sensitive Design approach and find that one reason values are not met in practice is that the system relies on modeling Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s). CHI ’21, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan © 2021 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-8096-6/21/05. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445748 assumptions about families’ priorities, constraints, and goals that clash with the real world. These assumptions overlook the complex barriers to ideal participation that many families face, particularly because of socioeconomic inequalities. We argue that direct, ongoing engagement with stakeholders is central to aligning algorithmic values with real world conditions. In doing so we must broaden how we evaluate algorithms while recognizing the limitations of purely algorithmic solutions in addressing complex socio-political problems.

[1]  Karla A. Badillo-Urquiola,et al.  A Human-Centered Review of Algorithms used within the U.S. Child Welfare System , 2020, CHI.

[2]  A. Korolova,et al.  Discrimination through Optimization , 2019, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[3]  A. Chouldechova,et al.  Toward Algorithmic Accountability in Public Services: A Qualitative Study of Affected Community Perspectives on Algorithmic Decision-making in Child Welfare Services , 2019, CHI.

[4]  Noëmi Manders-Huits,et al.  What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design , 2010, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[5]  H. Oosterbeek,et al.  Why are Schools Segregated? Evidence from the Secondary-School Match in Amsterdam , 2019 .

[6]  Min Kyung Lee,et al.  A Human-Centered Approach to Algorithmic Services: Considerations for Fair and Motivating Smart Community Service Management that Allocates Donations to Non-Profit Organizations , 2017, CHI.

[7]  Min Kyung Lee Algorithmic Mediation in Group Decisions: Fairness Perceptions of Algorithmically Mediated vs. Discussion-Based Social Division , 2017, CSCW.

[8]  Weng-Keen Wong,et al.  Too much, too little, or just right? Ways explanations impact end users' mental models , 2013, 2013 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing.

[9]  Justine S. Hastings,et al.  Heterogeneous Preferences and the Efficacy of Public School Choice , 2008 .

[10]  Yan Chen,et al.  Information acquisition and provision in school choice: An experimental study , 2021, J. Econ. Theory.

[11]  A. Rees-Jones,et al.  An experimental investigation of preference misrepresentation in the residency match , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  M. Laverde Unequal Assignments to Public Schools and the Limits of School Choice* , 2020 .

[13]  Eve L. Ewing Ghosts in the Schoolyard: Racism and School Closings on Chicago's South Side , 2018 .

[14]  P. H. Kahn,et al.  Human values, ethics, and design , 2002 .

[15]  Aaron Halfaker,et al.  Keeping Community in the Loop: Understanding Wikipedia Stakeholder Values for Machine Learning-Based Systems , 2020, CHI.

[16]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments , 2016, Big Data.

[17]  Susan Wyche,et al.  Values as lived experience: evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery , 2009, CHI.

[18]  Eric Ps Baumer,et al.  Toward human-centered algorithm design , 2017 .

[19]  Janelle T. Scott,et al.  School Choice and the Empowerment Imperative , 2013 .

[20]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Matching for the Israeli "Mechinot" Gap-Year Programs: Handling Rich Diversity Requirements , 2019, EC.

[21]  Pablo Guillen,et al.  Lying through Their Teeth: Third Party Advice and Truth Telling in a Strategy Proof Mechanism , 2014 .

[22]  Sasha Costanza-Chock Design Justice: Towards an Intersectional Feminist Framework for Design Theory and Practice , 2018, DRS2018: Catalyst.

[23]  Isa Emin Hafalir,et al.  Effective affirmative action in school choice , 2011 .

[24]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems , 2019, FAT.

[25]  Timnit Gebru,et al.  Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification , 2018, FAT.

[26]  D. Fitch,et al.  Review of "Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism," by Noble, S. U. (2018). New York, New York: NYU Press. , 2018, CDQR.

[27]  G. Box Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. , 1979 .

[28]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach , 2003 .

[29]  Zoë Hitzig The normative gap: mechanism design and ideal theories of justice , 2019, Economics and Philosophy.

[30]  Janelle T. Scott,et al.  Market-Driven Education Reform and the Racial Politics of Advocacy , 2011 .

[31]  Ian Alexander,et al.  An introduction to qualitative research , 2000, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[32]  Tingting Ding,et al.  Learning and Mechanism Design: An Experimental Test of School Matching Mechanisms with Intergenerational Advice , 2019, The Economic Journal.

[33]  A. Vignoles,et al.  What Parents Want: School Preferences and School Choice , 2015 .

[34]  H. Nissenbaum A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online , 2011, Daedalus.

[35]  Avinatan Hassidim,et al.  "Strategic" Behavior in a Strategy-proof Environment , 2016, EC.

[36]  Andrew Schotter,et al.  Matching and chatting: An experimental study of the impact of network communication on school-matching mechanisms , 2017, Games Econ. Behav..

[37]  L. Shapley,et al.  On cores and indivisibility , 1974 .

[38]  P S BaumerEric,et al.  Who is the "Human" in Human-Centered Machine Learning , 2019 .

[39]  Pablo Guillén,et al.  The effectiveness of top-down advice in strategy-proof mechanisms: A field experiment , 2018 .

[40]  Morgan G. Ames Learning consumption: Media, literacy, and the legacy of One Laptop per Child , 2016, Inf. Soc..

[41]  Janet Davis,et al.  Value Sensitive Design: Applications, Adaptations, and Critiques , 2013 .

[42]  L. S. Shapley,et al.  College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage , 2013, Am. Math. Mon..

[43]  Alan Borning,et al.  Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems , 2020, The Ethics of Information Technologies.

[44]  Lynn Dombrowski,et al.  Shared values/conflicting logics: working around e-government systems , 2014, CHI.

[45]  Pablo Guillén,et al.  Not quite the best response: truth-telling, strategy-proof matching, and the manipulation of others , 2017 .

[46]  Haiyi Zhu,et al.  Explaining Decision-Making Algorithms through UI: Strategies to Help Non-Expert Stakeholders , 2019, CHI.

[47]  Adam Tauman Kalai,et al.  Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings , 2016, NIPS.

[48]  Marzyeh Ghassemi,et al.  A Review of Challenges and Opportunities in Machine Learning for Health. , 2020, AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science.

[49]  Adam J. Kapor,et al.  NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES HETEROGENEOUS BELIEFS AND SCHOOL CHOICE MECHANISMS , 2019 .

[50]  Alan Borning,et al.  Next steps for value sensitive design , 2012, CHI.

[51]  Latanya Sweeney,et al.  Discrimination in online ad delivery , 2013, CACM.

[52]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  What Really Matters in Designing School Choice Mechanisms , 2017 .

[53]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[54]  Rakesh V. Vohra,et al.  Stable Matching with Proportionality Constraints , 2017, EC.

[55]  S. Glazerman,et al.  Market Signals: Evidence on the Determinants and Consequences of School Choice From a Citywide Lottery , 2016 .

[56]  Yoan Hermstrüwer Transparency and Fairness in School Choice Mechanisms , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[57]  Joana Pais,et al.  School choice and information: An experimental study on matching mechanisms , 2008, Games Econ. Behav..

[58]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Values at play: design tradeoffs in socially-oriented game design , 2005, CHI.

[59]  Adam J. Kapor,et al.  Heterogeneous Beliefs and School Choice Mechanisms , 2020 .

[60]  E. Ostrom,et al.  The Struggle to Govern the Commons , 2003, Science.

[61]  Alan Borning,et al.  A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods , 2018, Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact..

[62]  Brian W. Powers,et al.  Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations , 2019, Science.

[63]  Kate Crawford,et al.  Can an Algorithm be Agonistic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics , 2016 .