Learning Long-Term Educational Investment Policies under Residential Sorting

Despite the rapid deployment of LLMs into classrooms, validating educational AI remains uniquely intractable: interventions act on developing learners whose cognitive and social trajectories are irreversibly shaped, while real-world trials are slow, ethically constrained, and institutionally locked. LLM-based educational simulators have emerged as a potential remedy, but many still collapse learning into persona-conditioned role-play and, when optimized only to reproduce existing classrooms, can structurally penalize the institutional novelty that pedagogical reform requires. In this work, we introduce AgentSchool, an LLM-driven multi-agent simulator that models learning as state transition rather than prompted behavior. AgentSchool couples cognitively growable student agents -- equipped with weighted subject knowledge graphs, thinking-workflow pools, and explicit misconceptions -- with adaptive teacher agents that plan, scaffold, and reflect along the Zone of Proximal Development, embedded in a configurable scenery generator that situates instruction within both formal and informal learning fields, and a multi-scale simulator that decouples interaction scale, temporal granularity, and simulation duration. Experiments show that structured student agents produce more differentiated mastery and misconception traces than a baseline simulator, while teacher-agent comparisons show backbone-dependent patterns consistent with ZPD-informed adaptation. Further, AgentSchool generates plausible traces of peripheral participation, clique formation, aggressor-induced cohesion, and opinion-leader emergence consistent with classroom social theories. Beyond its role as an educational research instrument, AgentSchool frames education as a socially meaningful testbed for long-horizon memory, multi-agent coordination, and future institutional reasoning under organizational pressure.

Generative AI tutors provide real-time, personalized learning support, but also create a new education inequity: students with access to premium AI services may receive clearer explanations, more personalized guidance, and better scaffolding than students limited to free or low-cost services. To address this challenge, we propose FairTutor, an equity-aware model-routing framework that achieves cost-effective AI tutoring via pedagogically motivated multi-agent orchestration. FairTutor combines query analysis, pedagogical planning, low-cost model generation, evaluator-guided critique and revision, and selective escalation to premium AI models. We introduce access-tier AI Education (AIED) Advantage Gap to measure the quality difference between premium-access and budget-constrained tutoring, and TutorAccessEval, a benchmark spanning math, reading, writing, science, and language learning. Empirical evaluations show that FairTutor achieves 97.1% of premium pedagogical quality (in floor-adjusted Likert scale) while reducing serving cost by 71.6%. Sensitivity analysis reveals a tunable cost--quality Pareto frontier, enabling FairTutor to be tailored to the needs of diverse student populations.

Educational support services often face a qualified-capacity problem: staff time is scarce, qualifications decay, new support needs can appear before anyone is prepared for them, and training consumes the same hours needed by current students. We introduce a synthetic benchmark and decision-support framework for qualified educational capacity planning. The model is a stylized single-institution service system with heterogeneous support-demand categories, backlog-only dynamics, continuous preparation states with hard threshold qualification and decay, and capacity-consuming training. The benchmark includes seed-controlled scenarios for announced and surprise new support categories, staff absences, and demand surges; exact feasibility discipline; declared per-policy information sets; requalification and greenfield-qualification counters; access-dispersion metrics; replay checksums; and paired statistics. We compare service-only, reactive, static-insurance, water-filling, and rolling-horizon mixed-integer controllers, with an attribution chain separating service planning, qualification maintenance, and acquisition, plus a perfect-foresight reference. The central result is a regime map governed by whether a newly required qualification can be acquired within the controller's reaction reach. When it can, the closed-loop controller wins across the core and adversarial suites, with value concentrated in just-in-time qualification acquisition. When the training lag exceeds the horizon, lean static insurance wins structurally, and a reactive trainer that starts after onset can be worse than no training. Backlog perishability shifts this boundary without erasing either regime. EduCapacity Studio reproduces exported scenarios bit-for-bit. All evidence is stylized and synthetic; the framework makes no claims about real student outcomes, compliance, or individual placements.