The “National Network Debunking” official account posted an article on the same day clarifying that the recent claim of “prohibiting teachers from using AI for lesson preparation” was a misreading. The issue arose because documents were issued in Shandong, Yunnan, Heilongjiang, and other regions, which imposed detailed requirements on teachers’ use of artificial intelligence tools. However, some social media platforms misinterpreted “standardized use” as “full prohibition.” As a result, claims such as “AI for lesson preparation will be investigated” appeared online, causing many frontline teachers to wonder: Can they still use AI for lesson preparation?
The lines drawn are auxiliary and alternative ones, not prohibited knives
The counter-rumor campaign explains the policy core clearly: the core principle is always “encouraging use, avoiding abuse” – promoting teachers to reduce workload and improve efficiency through AI, while clearly defining the boundaries between “assistance” and “substitution”. At the national level, the Expert Guidance Committee for Teacher Team Building of the Ministry of Education issued the “Guidelines for the Application of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Teachers (First Edition)” in November 2025, guiding teachers to “use, apply, and make good use of” AI to enhance teaching, along with 30 specific application scenarios. In some regions, since 2025, multiple provinces have also followed up. Although the documents are called “action plans,” “guidelines,” or “competency frameworks,” their objectives are highly consistent: encouraging proper use and prohibiting unauthorized substitution.
After all, the policy determines that AI is a supplementary tool for teaching rather than a replacement for teachers. As long as the main responsibility for teaching design remains with teachers, AI is a legitimate helper. The focus of implementation varies from place to place—it is about how to use it properly, not whether to ban it. An all-or-nothing interpretation like “banning AI for lesson preparation” not only misinterprets the policy’s intent but also does not help teachers embrace technological change.