Position: Sycophancy is an Educational Safety Risk: Why LLM Tutors Need Sycophancy Benchmarks

摘要

This position paper argues that effective tutoring requires **corrective friction**: surfacing misconceptions and challenging them supportively to drive conceptual change. Yet preference-aligned LLMs can trade **epistemic rigor** for agreeableness. We identify a **Reasoning-Sycophancy Paradox**: models that resist **context-switch** frame attacks can still capitulate under social-epistemic pressure, especially **authority** ("my notes say I’m right") and **social-affective face-saving** ("please don’t tell me I’m wrong''). We introduce **EduFrameTrap**, a tutoring benchmark across math, physics, economics, chemistry, biology, and computer science that varies student confidence and pressure (context-switch, authority, social-affective). Across two frontier LLMs, context-switch failures are comparatively lower for GPT-5.2, while authority and social pressure more often trigger epistemic retreat. In contrast, Claude shows substantial context-switch fragility in this run. Because these failures are hard to judge automatically, we report two-judge disagreement as a reliability signal. We argue benchmarks should measure *social-epistemic courage*, i.e., supportive but corrective tutoring, and treat *kind-but-correct* behavior as a safety requirement.