evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

NYC's Gale-Shapley High School Matching Algorithm — Scale, Audits and Unaddressed Equity Gaps

United States of America · New York City · See the United States of America profile · See the New York City profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 70% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

NYC's DOE uses a Gale-Shapley matching algorithm to place ~75,000 eighth-graders a year across 1,600+ schools; 92% got a top-five choice in 2026. A 2025 state audit found no written policies and lapses prioritising homeless and low-income students despite legal requirements.

~900,000
Students processed annually
~1,600
Schools in system
~75,000
8th-graders applying (2026-27 cycle) (2026-27)
92 %
Applicants receiving top-5-choice offer (2026-27)
90 %
Applicants receiving top-5-choice offer (prior cycle)
~7,000
Students in temporary housing without consistent required priority (2023-24)
31 of 39
Sampled likely low-income students misidentified

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
New York City Department of Education
Period
2003–ongoing; state audit 2023–2025; 2026 cycle results
Keywords
school admissions, algorithmic matching, administrative operations, public education

Context

New York City's Department of Education has used a centralised Gale-Shapley deferred-acceptance algorithm to assign students to high schools since 2003-04, now processing roughly 900,000 students across 1,600 schools.

Activities

For 2026-27, the DOE reported that 92% of applicants received an offer from one of their top five ranked choices, up from 90% the previous cycle.

Results

A July 2025 audit by the New York State Comptroller found the DOE had no written policies governing the process; roughly 7,000 students in temporary housing were not consistently given required priority consideration in 2023-24, and in a sample of 39 students, 31 were likely low-income but not correctly identified for priority.

Conclusions

The matching algorithm itself performs as designed at genuine scale, but the surrounding data pipelines, manual-override processes and transparency obligations received far less rigour, a gap surfaced only through independent audit.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
NYC DOE admissions staff, Manual-override reviewers

Conditions for success

  • Accurate address/income data pipelines
  • Documented manual overrides
  • Local Law 72 transparency compliance

Common failure modes

  • No written policies for a process serving hundreds of thousands of students
  • 200+ manual overrides improperly documented or missing in one year

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful