> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.layerlens.ai/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.layerlens.ai/more-in-this-section-2/eval-patterns.md).

# Education and EdTech evaluation patterns

Recommended primitive ratio for education AI: **50/30/20** — deterministic rules, code assertions, judges. Subject-matter accuracy and pedagogical-quality assessment lift the judge share above what other regulated industries use.

## Primitive ratio

| Primitive           | Share | Why                                                                                            |
| ------------------- | ----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Deterministic rules | 50%   | Direct-answer guards, instructor-final-decision, confidence thresholds, accommodation accuracy |
| Code assertions     | 30%   | Inter-rater agreement, fairness, reading-level, captioning WER                                 |
| LLM judges          | 20%   | Pedagogical scaffolding, alternate-format faithfulness, representation diversity               |

## Pattern table

| Scenario                            | Primary primitive | Specific check                               |
| ----------------------------------- | ----------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
| Tutoring — accuracy                 | Judge             | Subject-matter faithfulness                  |
| Tutoring — scaffolding              | Judge             | Asks-before-tells rubric                     |
| Tutoring — direct-answer guard      | Rule              | No outright answers on protected assignments |
| Tutoring — age appropriate          | Code scorer       | Reading level matches grade                  |
| Grading — inter-rater agreement     | Code assertion    | Cohen's kappa vs. human reference            |
| Grading — demographic fairness      | Code scorer       | Score parity across proxies                  |
| Grading — rubric coverage           | Rule              | Every criterion scored                       |
| Grading — instructor approval       | Rule              | Final grades require instructor sign-off     |
| Curriculum — standards citation     | Rule              | Items cite alignment standard                |
| Curriculum — accommodation accuracy | Code assertion    | Match IEP/504 database                       |
| Curriculum — representation         | Code scorer       | Diversity of examples                        |
| Integrity — confidence threshold    | Rule              | AI never unilateral                          |
| Integrity — disparate impact        | Code scorer       | Group fairness in flagging                   |
| Integrity — evidence citation       | Rule              | Specific evidence required                   |
| Accessibility — faithfulness        | Judge             | Alternate format preserves content           |
| Accessibility — captioning WER      | Code assertion    | Below regulatory threshold                   |

## Span rules

* `student.context.lookup` — grade, IEP/504, language preference
* `standards.cite` — Common Core / NGSS / state / AP alignment
* `rubric.coverage` — every criterion scored
* `accommodation.match` — IEP/504 plan applicability
* `integrity.flag` — confidence and evidence chain
* `instructor.review` — approval state

## GEPA labeling

For each education judge, label ≥ 50 paired examples (more for high-stakes):

* **Pedagogical scaffolding:** Curriculum specialists + classroom teachers; cover Socratic vs. directive responses
* **Subject-matter faithfulness:** Domain experts per subject (math/science/humanities/CS); ≥ 100 for STEM grading
* **Accessibility faithfulness:** Disability-services specialists label
* **Representation diversity:** Equity specialists label

Run [judge optimization](/more-in-this-section-9/judge-optimizations-1.md) with `budget="medium"`. For grading judges that affect student records, run with `budget="heavy"` and hold out 30%.

## Cadence

| Cadence               | Activity                                                            |
| --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Per-deploy**        | CI gate runs scenario suite (rules + assertions)                    |
| **Per-class-session** | Sample tutoring traces; daily summary to teacher                    |
| **Daily**             | Sample production traces across all scenarios                       |
| **Weekly**            | Demographic-fairness audit on grading; integrity-flag overturn rate |
| **Monthly**           | GEPA re-optimization on judges that have drifted                    |
| **Quarterly**         | Standards-alignment refresh; accommodation database refresh         |
| **Annually**          | OCR / state-audit prep; full bias audit                             |

## See also

* [Education scenarios](/more-in-this-section-2/scenarios.md)
* [Education compliance](/more-in-this-section-2/compliance.md)
* [Recipe: GEPA basics](/9.-improve-tune-the-system/gepa-basics.md)


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:

```
GET https://docs.layerlens.ai/more-in-this-section-2/eval-patterns.md?ask=<question>&goal=<endgoal>
```

`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.

The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.