School Choice in Chile

Centralized school admission mechanisms are an attractive way of improving social welfare and fairness in large educational systems. In this paper we report the design and implementation of the newly established school choice mechanism in Chile, where over 274,000 students applied to more than 6,400 schools. The Chilean system presents unprecedented design challenges that make it unique. On the one hand, it is a simultaneous nationwide system, making it one of the largest school admission problems worldwide. On the other hand, the system runs at all school levels, from Pre-K to 12th grade, raising at least two issues of outmost importance; namely, the system needs to guarantee their current seat to students applying for a school change, and the system has to favor the assignment of siblings to the same school. As in other systems around the world, we develop a model based on the celebrated Deferred Acceptance algorithm. The algorithm deals not only with the aforementioned issues, but also with further practical features such as soft-bounds and overlapping types. In this context we analyze new stability definitions, present the results of its implementation and conduct simulations showing the benefits of the innovations of the implemented system.

[1]  F. Sabatini,et al.  Cultura de cohesión e integración en las ciudades chilenas , 2012 .

[2]  Lauren Birney,et al.  Advanced Placement Environmental Science and the Curriculum and Community Enterprise for Restoration Science (CCERS) Project in the New York City High School , 2018 .

[3]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Strategy-Proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match , 2009 .

[4]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Controlled School Choice with Soft Bounds and Overlapping Types , 2015, AAAI.

[5]  Juan Pablo Valenzuela,et al.  Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system. The case of Chile , 2014 .

[6]  Itai Ashlagi,et al.  Stability in Large Matching Markets with Complementarities , 2014, Oper. Res..

[7]  Isa Emin Hafalir,et al.  School Choice with Controlled Choice Constraints: Hard Bounds Versus Soft Bounds , 2011, J. Econ. Theory.

[8]  A. Roth The Evolution of the Labor Market for Medical Interns and Residents: A Case Study in Game Theory , 1984, Journal of Political Economy.

[9]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The Boston Public School Match , 2005 .

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

[11]  Lars Ehlers,et al.  Controlled School Choice , 2008 .

[12]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Matching with Contracts , 2005 .

[13]  Cristóbal Villalobos,et al.  Polarización y Cohesión Social del Sistema Escolar Chileno , 2012 .

[14]  Nick Arnosti,et al.  Short Lists in Centralized Clearinghouses , 2015, EC.

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

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

[17]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Reserve Design: Unintended Consequences and the Demise of Boston’s Walk Zones , 2018, Journal of Political Economy.

[18]  Fuhito Kojima,et al.  School choice: Impossibilities for affirmative action , 2012, Games Econ. Behav..

[19]  Caterina Calsamiglia,et al.  The Illusion of School Choice: Empirical Evidence from Barcelona , 2014, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[20]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The New York City High School Match , 2005 .

[21]  H. Oosterbeek,et al.  The Performance of School Assignment Mechanisms in Practice , 2015, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  F. Kojima,et al.  Efficient Matching under Distributional Constraints: Theory and Applications , 2015 .

[23]  Yeon-Koo Che,et al.  Resolving Conflicting Preferences in School Choice: The 'Boston' Mechanism Reconsidered , 2009 .

[24]  Michel Balinski,et al.  Student admissions and faculty recruitment , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Explicit vs. Statistical Preferential Treatment in Affirmative Action: Theory and Evidence from Chicago&Apos;S Exam Schools , 2016 .

[26]  Itai Ashlagi,et al.  Assigning More Students to their Top Choices: A Tiebreaking Rule Comparison , 2015, EC.

[27]  C CristiánBellei,et al.  El estudio de la segregación socioeconómica y académica de la educación chilena. , 2013 .

[28]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Strategy-Proofness Versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the New York City High School Match , 2009 .

[29]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Minimizing Justified Envy in School Choice: The Design of New Orleans&Apos; Oneapp , 2017 .

[30]  Michel Balinski,et al.  Of Stable Marriages and Graphs, and Strategy and Polytopes , 1997, SIAM Rev..

[31]  Muhammed A. Yıldırım,et al.  Effective affirmative action in school choice: Effective affirmative action in school choice , 2013 .

[32]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Matching with Couples: Stability and Incentives in Large Markets , 2010 .