skip to main content
10.1145/3328526.3329580acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

School Choice in Chile

Published:17 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

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.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p325-correa.mp4

mp4

1.3 GB

References

  1. 24Horas. 2017. Apoderados hacen largas filas para postular a colegio en Santiago. https://www.24horas.cl/nacional/apoderados-hacen-largas-filas-para-postular-a-colegio-en-santiago-2483007Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Atila Abdulkadiroug lu. 2007. Controlled School Choice . New York, Vol. 2006, April (2007), 1--44. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.169.4192Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Yeon-Koo Che, Parag A. Pathak, Alvin E. Roth, and Olivier Tercieux. 2017. Minimizing Justified Envy in School Choice: The Design of New Orleans' OneApp . Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Atila Abdulkadiroug lu, Yeon-Koo Che, and Yosuke Yasuda. 2011. Resolving conflicting preferences in school choice: The" boston mechanism" reconsidered. American Economic Review, Vol. 101, 1 (2011), 399--410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Atila Abdulkadiroug lu, Parag A. Pathak, and Alvin E. Roth. 2005 a. The New York City high school match. American Economic Review, Vol. 95 (2005), 364--367.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Atila Abdulkadiroug lu, Parag A. Pathak, and Alvin E. Roth. 2009. Strategy-proofness versus efficiency in matching with indifferences: redesigning the New York City high school match. American Economic Review, Vol. 99 (2009), 1954--1978.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Atila Abdulkadiroug lu, Parag A. Pathak, Alvin E. Roth, and Tayfun Sönmez. 2005 b. The Boston public school match. American Economic Review, Vol. 95 (2005), 368--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Atila Abdulkadiroug lu and Tayfun Sönmez. 2003. School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach. American Economic Review, Vol. 93 (2003), 729 -- 747.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Nick Arnosti. 2015. Short Lists in Centralized Clearinghouses. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 751--751. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Itai Ashlagi, Mark Braverman, and Avinatan Hassidim. 2014. Stability in Large Matching Markets with Complementarities. Operations Research, Vol. 62, 4 (2014), 713--732.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Itai Ashlagi, Afshin Nikzad, and Assaf Romm. 2015. Assigning More Students to Their Top Choices: A Tiebreaking Rule Comparison. (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mourad Ba"iou and Michel Balinski. 2004. Student admissions and faculty recruitment. Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 322, 2 (2004), 245--265. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Michel Balinski and Guillaume Ratier. 1997. Of stable marriages and graphs, and strategy and polytopes. SIAM review, Vol. 39, 4 (1997), 575--604. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Cristian Bellei. 2013. El estudio de la segregación socioeconómica y académica de la educación chilena. Estudios pedagógicos (Valdivia), Vol. 39, 1 (2013), 325--345.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Caterina Calsamiglia and Maia Güell. 2014. The illusion of school choice: empirical evidence from Barcelona. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Cooperativa. 2017. Apoderados nuevamente hicieron fila para postular a colegio capitalino. https://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/pais/educacion/colegios/apoderados-nuevamente-hicieron-fila-para-postular-a-colegio-capitalino/2017-06--12/074548.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Monique De Haan, Pieter A. Gautier, Hessel Oosterbeek, and Bas Van der Klaauw. 2015. The performance of school assignment mechanisms in practice . Technical Report. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Umut Dur, Scott Duke, Kominers Parag, Parag A Pathak, and Tayfun Sö nmez. 2016a. Reserve Design: Unintended Consequences and The Demise of Boston's Walk Zones . Journal of Political Economy (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Umut Dur, Parag A. Pathak, and Tayfun Sö nmez. 2016b. Explicit Vs. Statistical Preferential Treatment in Affirmative Action: Theory and Evidence From Chicago'S Exam Schools . NBER Working Paper Series (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lars Ehlers, Isa E. Hafalir, M. Bumin Yenmez, and Muhammed A. Yildirim. 2014. School choice with controlled choice constraints: Hard bounds versus soft bounds. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 153 (2014), 648--683.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. David Gale and Lloyd S. Shapley. 1962. College admissions and the stability of marriage. Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. 69, 1 (January 1962), 9--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Pieter A. Gautier, Monique De Haan, Bas Van Der Klaauw, and Hessel Oosterbeek. 2016. Eerste analyse matching en loting voortgezet onderwijs Amsterdam 2016*. Evaluation Paper, URL: http://www. verenigingosvo. nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Rapport-loting-en-matching-2016-beschrijvend-rapport. pdf, Retrieved June, Vol. 14 (2016), 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Isa E. Hafalir, M. Bumin Yenmez, and Muhammed A. Yildirim. 2013. Effective Affirmative Action in School Choice . Theoretical Economics, Vol. 8 (2013), 325--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. John W. Hatfield and Paul R. Milgrom. 2005. Matching with contracts. American Economic Review, Vol. 95, 4 (2005), 913--935.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Andrés Hernando, Karina Niklitschek, and Daniel Brieba. 2014. Segregación escolar en Chile. Santiago: Horizontal (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Yuichiro Kamada and Fuhito Kojima. 2015. Efficient matching under distributional constraints: Theory and applications . American Economic Review, Vol. 105, 1 (2015), 67--99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Fuhito Kojima. 2012. School choice: Impossibilities for affirmative action . Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 75, 2 (2012), 685--693.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Fuhito Kojima, Parag A. Pathak, and Alvin E. Roth. 2013. Matching with couples: Stability and incentives in large markets. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 128, 4 (2013), 1585--1632.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Ryoji Kurata, Naoto Hamada, Atsushi Iwasaki, and Makoto Yokoo. 2017. Controlled school choice with soft bounds and overlapping types. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, Vol. 58 (2017), 153--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. MINEDUC. 2018. Estadisticas de la Educacion 2017. hhttps://centroestudios.mineduc.cl/wp-content/uploads/sites/100/2018/12/ANUARIO-MINEDUC_VERSION-BAJA.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Alvin E. Roth. 1984. The Evolution of the Labor Market for Medical Interns and Residents: A Case Study in Game Theory . Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 92, 6 (1984), 991--1016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1831989Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. T13. 2017. Apoderados hacen fila por tres días para cupo en colegio. http://www.t13.cl/videos/nacional/video-apoderados-hacen-fila-tres-dias-cupo-colegioGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Juan P. Valenzuela, Cristian Bellei, and Danae De los Ríos. 2008. Evolución de la Segregación Socioeconómica de los Estudiantes Chilenos y su Relación con el Financiamiento Compartido. Technical Report. Ministerio de Educación.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Juan P. Valenzuela, Cristian Bellei, and Danae De los R'ios. 2014. Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system. The case of Chile. Journal of education Policy, Vol. 29, 2 (2014), 217--241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Juan P. Valenzuela, Cristian Bellei, A Osses, and A Sevilla. 2011. ¿ Por qué los jóvenes chilenos mejoraron su competencia lectora en la prueba PISA. Evidencias para Pol'iticas Públicas en Educación (2011), 265--311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Cristóbal Villalobos and Juan P. Valenzuela. 2012. Polarización y cohesión social del sistema escolar chileno. Revista de análisis económico, Vol. 27, 2 (2012), 145--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Guillermo Wormald, Carolina Flores, Francisco Sabatini, Mar'ia Paz Trebilcock, and Alejandra Rasse Figueroa. 2012. Cultura de cohesión e integración en las ciudades chilenas. Revista invi, Vol. 27, 76 (2012), 117--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. School Choice in Chile

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        EC '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
        June 2019
        947 pages
        ISBN:9781450367929
        DOI:10.1145/3328526

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 June 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        EC '19 Paper Acceptance Rate106of382submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate664of2,389submissions,28%

        Upcoming Conference

        EC '24
        The 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
        July 8 - 11, 2024
        New Haven , CT , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader