Grading and Feedback Automation

The problem, as school leaders describe it

My English department is grading until nine at night, and the feedback students get is still shorter than it should be.

Written feedback is the first thing cut when a week gets tight. It is also the thing that moves student writing the most. A teacher with five sections of thirty students is writing the same paragraph about thesis statements thirty times, and by the twentieth one it is three words long.

The usual response is to ask teachers to grade faster or to buy a tool that grades for them. The first does not work. The second produces feedback that reads like it came from a machine, because it did, and students notice within a week.

A typical teacher spends 5 hours a week on grading and feedback — out of a 54-hour median workweek (EdWeek Research Center / Merrimack College national survey).

What we build

A rubric-driven feedback engine that produces a complete draft for every submission, which the teacher then edits, approves, or regenerates.

• Your rubric, not ours. The rubric is editable by the department. Criteria, levels, and language all come from the people who teach the course.
• Evidence-backed scores. Each criterion score is tied to a verbatim quote from the student's own submission, so a teacher can check the reasoning in seconds instead of rereading the essay.
• Quote verification at runtime. Every quote is checked against the source text before the draft reaches a teacher. Anything that cannot be verified is flagged for review rather than shown as fact.
• Narrative comments in the department's voice. Tone and reading level are calibrated with the teachers who will send it.
• Batch processing with a class summary. A full set of submissions runs at once, with a summary of where the class as a whole is struggling.
• Export back into the gradebook. Scores and comments come out in a format your system accepts.

How it fits the systems you already run

Submissions come from where they already live. Google Classroom, Google Drive, or whatever your LMS uses. Scores and approved comments go back to the gradebook of record. Teachers work in a review view, and that is the only new surface anyone has to learn.

• Google Workspace. Classroom, Drive, Docs, and Sheets, using the accounts your staff already sign in with.
• Your SIS. Roster and gradebook sync through the integration path your SIS supports, so nobody maintains a second roster.
• No new logins. Staff authenticate with the school account they already have.

AI drafts. Teachers decide.

Nothing a model produces reaches a student, a family, or a permanent record without a person approving it. Every workflow includes an explicit review step, and the review step cannot be switched off.

This is partly about accuracy and mostly about trust. A school's standing with its families is built over years and spent in a single badly worded message. The few seconds a review costs are the cheapest insurance in the system.

In the grading workflow specifically, that means a draft is never posted to a gradebook automatically. A teacher sees the score, the evidence, and the comment, and then edits, approves, or sends it back. Teachers report the review taking a fraction of the time writing from scratch does, and the feedback students receive gets longer rather than shorter.

What this typically costs

Grading and feedback is one of the most common single-workflow pilots, which runs $6,000 to $9,000 after the $2,500 audit. A department-wide rollout that adds related workflows runs $18,000 to $30,000. Full detail is on the pricing page.