IT Home reported on October 14 that the public account “National Network Disinformation Elimination” posted today, claiming that “banning teachers from using AI for lesson preparation” is a misreading.
Recently, places such as Shandong, Yunnan, and Heilongjiang have successively introduced regulations that impose detailed requirements on teachers' use of artificial intelligence tools. Some social media platforms interpreted “standardized use” as “complete prohibition,” leading to online claims like “Teachers are prohibited from using AI for lesson preparation” and “AI-based lesson preparation will be investigated.” This has caused many teachers to wonder: Is it acceptable to use AI for lesson preparation?
In fact, the core of the policy has always been “encouraging use, not abuse”. We encourage teachers to make good use of AI to reduce workload and increase efficiency, while clearly defining the boundaries between “assistance” and “substitution”.
At the national level, in November 2025, the Expert Steering Committee for Teacher Team Building of the Ministry of Education released the “Guidelines for the Application of Generative AI in Teachers” (First Edition), which clearly guides teachers to “be willing to use, be able to use, and make good use of” AI to empower education and teaching, and provides 30 specific application scenarios.
At the local level, since 2025, multiple provinces have successively introduced relevant regulations. Although the names of the documents vary—some are called “action plans,” some “guidance outlines,” and some “competence frameworks”—the core message is consistent: encouraging reasonable use and prohibiting unauthorized substitution.
The policy direction is very clear: AI is a supporting tool for teaching, not a replacement for teachers. As long as teachers retain responsibility for teaching design, AI is a legal supporting tool. The detailed implementation of policies varies by region, focusing on “how to use it properly,” rather than “whether to ban it.”
“Disabling AI lesson preparation” is a typical misinterpretation of the policy. This kind of “one-size-fits-all prohibition” not only fails to reflect the true intent of the policy, but also does not help teachers embrace technological change.