The AI School Librarian Newsletter — Weekly News Brief

Curated by Elissa Malespina |May 15, 2026

Weekly updates for educators, librarians, and school leaders navigating the fast-moving world of AI.

This week’s developments show schools moving from broad AI conversations into harder implementation questions. Districts are writing rules. Teachers are trying to figure out what AI means for multilingual learners and writing instruction. Federal policymakers are proposing ways to fund AI literacy. At the same time, major edtech breaches are reminding schools that every new tool also expands the student data footprint.

For school librarians, the throughline is clear. AI literacy cannot be separated from privacy, information ethics, research skills, and student agency.

Read more

A few years ago, book challenges were often framed as isolated local disputes.

A parent objected to a title. A district reviewed it. The process moved slowly and publicly.

That is no longer what is happening.

The latest reports from PEN America and the American Library Association show something much larger. Book bans are becoming organized, normalized, and increasingly political. And now, efforts like H.R. 7661, which I wrote about here yesterday, threaten to shift that pressure from local campaigns into federal policy.

This is no longer just a conversation about individual books.

It is a conversation about who controls access to information in schools, whose stories are considered acceptable, and whether intellectual freedom will remain a core value in public education.

For years, many educators and librarians warned that censorship efforts would not remain isolated to a handful of districts or viral school board meetings. The newest data suggests those warnings were not exaggerated.

The infrastructure around censorship has changed.

What the PEN America Report Actually Says

PEN America’s latest report documents the continued escalation of book bans across the United States.

According to the organization, there were 6,870 documented book bans during the 2024-2025 school year across 23 states and 87 school districts. Nearly 4,000 unique titles were affected. Since 2021, PEN America has documented more than 22,800 book bans nationwide.

But the most important finding in the report is not simply the numbers.

It is the normalization.

Schools are increasingly responding to political pressure before formal complaints are even filed. Librarians report fear, exhaustion, harassment, and growing pressure to avoid controversy. In some districts, books are removed preemptively. In others, educators narrow classroom collections quietly to avoid becoming targets.

The most effective censorship is often invisible.

It happens before a formal challenge ever appears in public.

I Know This Fight Personally

In 2022, I lost my position after creating diverse book displays in my school library.

At the time, many people treated incidents like that as isolated controversies. Looking back now, it is clear they were early signs of a much larger national shift around censorship, political pressure, and access to information.

Since then, book bans have expanded nationally. Organized pressure campaigns have intensified. State legislation has increased. And efforts like H.R. 7661 suggest that what once operated locally is increasingly moving into federal policy conversations.

That experience shaped how I think about intellectual freedom, professional risk, and the growing pressure educators face when access to diverse stories becomes politicized.

What Changed?

Ten years ago, most reconsideration processes were slow, localized, and relatively rare.

Today, a single social media post can trigger national outrage campaigns within hours.

Political organizations distribute challenge templates online. Activist networks coordinate messaging across states. School board disputes become national content ecosystems amplified through podcasts, YouTube channels, Facebook groups, and political fundraising campaigns.

Censorship today is faster, louder, and more coordinated than previous eras.

At the same time, many districts operate under enormous political and financial pressure. Administrators know a single controversy can dominate local headlines, create legal threats, or trigger organized harassment campaigns.

As a result, some schools are no longer waiting for challenges.

They are removing first and reviewing later.

The Top Challenged Books Tell a Story

The ALA’s Top 10 Most Challenged Books list reveals a clear pattern.

Many of the most targeted titles focus on LGBTQ+ identity, race, trauma, abuse, mental health, or marginalized experiences. Frequently challenged books include titles such as:

• Gender Queer

• All Boys Aren’t Blue

• The Bluest Eye

• Sold

• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

These books are often publicly framed as disputes about “explicit content.”

But the broader pattern tells a more complicated story.

Books about sexual violence are challenged for sexual content. Books about LGBTQ+ identity are framed as inappropriate. Books addressing racism or systemic inequality are labeled divisive.

According to ALA data, a significant percentage of challenged books involve LGBTQ+ themes or authors and stories centered on people of color.

The targeting patterns are difficult to ignore.

The Myth of “Concerned Parents”

One of the most revealing findings in recent censorship data is who is actually driving many of these challenges.

According to ALA reporting, the overwhelming majority of organized book challenges now come from pressure groups, political organizations, elected officials, or coordinated campaigns rather than individual parents acting independently.

That does not mean parents should not have concerns or ask questions about school materials. Schools already have review systems and reconsideration policies for exactly that reason.

But the current landscape increasingly reflects organized political activism rather than isolated community concerns.

That distinction matters.

Because organized campaigns create pressure far beyond individual complaints. They generate fear, encourage anticipatory censorship, and reshape decision-making long before a public challenge occurs.

From Local Challenges to Federal Policy

This is where H.R. 7661 becomes important.

For years, book bans were often framed as local disputes between parents and school districts.

H.R. 7661 represents something different.

The bill attempts to move censorship from localized pressure campaigns into federal education policy by tying federal funding to broad restrictions on materials deemed “sexually oriented.” The language within the bill specifically references materials involving “gender dysphoria or transgenderism.”

The danger is not only what the bill explicitly targets.

It is the chilling effect it creates.

When funding is threatened, schools do not wait for legal clarity. They over-correct. They remove materials preemptively. They narrow collections to avoid political risk.

The bill mirrors many of the same targeting patterns reflected in the ALA’s most challenged books data.

That connection matters.

Because it demonstrates how local censorship efforts can evolve into broader policy frameworks with national implications.

Students Are Watching

Students notice which stories adults are afraid of.

They notice which identities create controversy.

They notice which histories are treated as dangerous.

Even when books remain technically available somewhere else, the public act of restricting them sends a message.

For some students, that message is that their experiences are controversial. For others, it teaches that avoiding difficult conversations matters more than understanding them.

That lesson carries consequences far beyond the library.

Who Gets Hurt First?

Students who rely most heavily on school libraries are often the first to lose access.

That includes:

• LGBTQ+ students

• students of color

• students navigating trauma

• students seeking representation

• students without access to books at home

• students whose communities are already underrepresented in curriculum

When access narrows, the impact is not evenly distributed.

Students with financial privilege may still access books elsewhere. Students with strong support systems may still find representation online or through private networks.

Many students cannot.

For some young people, the school library is the only place where they encounter stories that reflect their identities, histories, or experiences.

When those stories disappear, students lose more than books.

They lose visibility.

This Is About More Than Books

Defending intellectual freedom does not mean every book belongs in every grade level or instructional setting.

Schools already have professional selection policies, review procedures, and reconsideration systems.

The concern raised by these reports is not the existence of review systems.

It is the growing replacement of professional processes with political pressure and anticipatory censorship.

Public debate matters.

But expertise also matters.

Librarians, educators, and professional review systems exist because thoughtful collection development requires context, standards, and educational judgment, not viral outrage cycles.

This also extends far beyond reading lists.

It affects:

• information literacy

• civic education

• historical understanding

• media literacy

• research skills

• student inquiry

• academic freedom

At the same moment educators are trying to prepare students for an AI-driven information ecosystem filled with misinformation, deepfakes, manipulated media, and algorithmic bias, many schools are restricting access to professionally selected books and library materials.

Those trends cannot be separated.

Critical thinking requires exposure to complexity.

Students do not learn how to evaluate ideas by only encountering information that feels politically safe or universally comfortable.

The Invisible Impact: Self-Censorship

The most alarming effect of censorship may not be the public bans themselves.

It may be the silence that follows.

Librarians quietly stop ordering certain books. Teachers remove titles from classroom shelves. Publishers hesitate. Authors self-edit. Districts narrow collections before complaints are even filed.

This form of censorship rarely appears in official statistics.

But it reshapes education all the same.

Part of the danger of normalization is exhaustion.

Over time, repeated controversy can make even committed educators feel that resistance is impossible or no longer worth the personal cost.

And once self-censorship becomes normalized, rebuilding intellectual freedom becomes much harder.

What Happens Next?

The next phase of censorship debates may not focus only on physical books.

Increasingly, these efforts may target:

• digital collections

• research databases

• ebook platforms

• classroom resource systems

• AI-generated content

• educational technology platforms

• access itself

This matters because students now encounter information across interconnected systems, not just physical shelves.

The future of intellectual freedom will not only be decided by what remains in libraries.

It will also be shaped by what students are allowed to search, access, view, and question in digital environments.

History Offers a Warning

History shows that censorship movements rarely stop with one category of books.

Once systems are built to restrict access to information, the scope often expands.

The United States has seen previous waves targeting:

• civil rights literature

• LGBTQ+ materials

• anti-war writing

• feminist texts

• books discussing racism and inequality

Each era justified restrictions differently.

But the underlying pattern remains familiar.

Control access to information. Define which stories are acceptable. Narrow what students are allowed to encounter.

What Educators and Librarians Can Do Right Now

This moment requires more than quiet concern.

It requires public engagement.

Some practical steps include:

• contacting legislators about censorship-related bills

• attending school board meetings

• understanding local reconsideration policies

• supporting organizations like EveryLibrary, PEN America, and Unite Against Book Bans

• documenting removals and restrictions

• supporting librarians and teachers facing harassment

• reading challenged books directly rather than relying on social media summaries

• speaking publicly about intellectual freedom and access

Neutrality becomes difficult when access to information itself is under attack.

Final Thoughts

Four years ago, many people believed these conflicts were temporary controversies.

The latest data suggests otherwise.

The question is no longer whether book bans exist.

The question is whether we are willing to accept censorship as a normal part of education.

Intellectual freedom is not about agreement.

It is about preserving the ability to encounter ideas, perspectives, and experiences that challenge us.

Because once restricted access to information becomes routine, rebuilding a culture of intellectual freedom becomes far harder than protecting it in the first place.

And at a moment when students are already navigating one of the most unstable information environments in modern history, weakening access to professionally selected books and library resources moves schools in exactly the wrong direction.

It came from five government graphics posted on social media.

The moment I saw them, I immediately thought: this would make an incredible classroom lesson.

This week, I commented on the U.S. Department of Education’s Facebook page after noticing something difficult to ignore. The graphics created for National Charter Schools Week presented charter schools as warm, aspirational, joyful spaces filled with smiling families, glowing classrooms, and emotionally uplifting language.

The graphics created for Teacher Appreciation Week felt entirely different.

The contrast was so stark that it instantly became a media literacy case study.

As a media specialist who teaches information literacy, I wrote:

“The stark differences in images between Teacher Appreciation Week and Charter School Week make for an excellent lesson in media intent, propaganda, and media literacy.”

Nearly 1,000 people liked the comment so far.

Because people noticed it too.

And honestly, they should.

The Images Communicate Before the Words Do

The charter school graphics are polished and emotionally reassuring.

“Teach, Lead, Inspire.”

“When Parents Decide Kids Thrive.”

The visuals use warm lighting, smiling children, engaged teachers, hopeful body language, and soft watercolor aesthetics. Everything about the design communicates trust, optimism, safety, and possibility.

Now compare that with the Teacher Appreciation Week graphics.

Teachers are represented through exaggerated cartoon stereotypes and emotionally flatter imagery. One image includes a character reading a book labeled “MAGA.” Others portray teachers as awkward, angry, or strange caricatures.

The emotional framing is completely different.

And that matters.

Because media literacy is not just about identifying misinformation anymore.

It is about recognizing framing.

It is about understanding how design choices shape emotional interpretation before a viewer consciously analyzes the message.

Students should be taught to ask:

• Why were these images designed this way?

• What emotional response are viewers supposed to have?

• Which images feel trustworthy?

• Which feel respectful?

• What assumptions are embedded in the visuals?

• Who benefits from these portrayals?

• What audiences are these graphics targeting?

Those are information literacy skills.

And this is exactly the kind of real-world example students immediately understand.

There Is No Such Thing as a Neutral Image

Students are often taught to focus primarily on factual accuracy while overlooking emotional construction.

But images are never neutral.

Every design decision communicates values.

• Who is centered?

• Who is smiling?

• Who appears competent?

• What colors are used?

• What feels hopeful?

• What feels threatening?

• What feels modern?

• What feels outdated?

Even “positive” imagery can still function as persuasion.

That is an important shift students need to understand because modern propaganda rarely announces itself openly.

Instead, it quietly shapes emotional perception.

Media Literacy Is Also Emotional Literacy

One reason propaganda works so effectively is because it often bypasses analytical thinking and moves directly into emotion.

Students should learn to identify:

• emotional triggers

• aspirational imagery

• nostalgia

• ridicule and caricature

• identity reinforcement

• fear-based framing

• emotional contrast

The question is not only:

“What does this say?”

It is also:

“What does this make me feel?”

That is a deeper literacy skill many schools still do not explicitly teach.

Why This Matters Even More in the AI Era

AI image generators can now create emotionally persuasive imagery in seconds.

That changes everything.

Political campaigns can mass-produce emotionally targeted visuals.

Advocacy groups can generate propaganda instantly.

Fake “authentic” classroom scenes can spread online before anyone questions them.

Visual persuasion can now be personalized at scale.

Students do not just need fact-checking skills anymore.

They need visual analysis skills.

They need to understand emotional framing.

They need to recognize persuasive aesthetics.

And they need opportunities to practice slowing down and asking critical questions before reacting emotionally.

That is where media literacy is heading.

What Students Will Probably Notice First

One reason this example works so well instructionally is because students will immediately recognize the differences.

They will likely notice:

• realistic imagery versus cartoons

• warmth versus mockery

• hopeful language versus stereotype-driven language

• emotional tone differences

• aspiration versus caricature

And importantly, students may disagree about interpretation.

That disagreement is valuable.

Because media literacy is not about forcing students toward one approved conclusion.

It is about helping students support interpretations with evidence.

That distinction matters.

A Powerful Classroom Activity

What makes this example especially useful for educators is that it is accessible immediately.

Students do not need extensive background knowledge to begin analyzing it.

They can see the contrast themselves.

Step 1: Show the Images Without Context

Ask students to silently record first impressions.

• What emotions do they notice?

• Which images feel positive?

• Which feel negative?

• Which feel professional?

• Which feel exaggerated?

Step 2: Analyze the Design Choices

Have students identify:

• color palette

• lighting

• facial expressions

• typography

• word choice

• character design

• symbols

• emotional tone

Then ask:

“What message does each design communicate about teachers or schools?”

Step 3: Discuss Framing and Intent

Students can debate:

• whether the differences were intentional

• how visual framing shapes public perception

• whether viewers interpret these messages differently based on politics or personal experience

• how images influence opinion even without explicit statements

Step 4: Redesign the Message

Have students redesign one of the graphics to communicate a different emotional tone.

This is often where the deepest learning happens because students begin to understand that media is constructed. Every visual choice is deliberate.

Try This Tomorrow

Ask students to:

1. Screenshot three education-related social media posts

2. Analyze the emotional tone

3. Identify the intended audience

4. Discuss what values are being promoted

5. Rewrite the message from a different perspective

This transforms passive scrolling into active analysis.

And honestly, that may be one of the most important literacy skills students can develop right now.

Why This Matters Beyond These Images

This lesson is not really about charter schools.

And it is not really about whether someone politically agrees or disagrees with the Department of Education.

It is about helping students recognize how media framing works in the real world.

Because persuasion today rarely arrives as obvious propaganda.

It arrives through aesthetics.

Through emotional association.

Through repetition.

Through tone.

Through visual storytelling.

Through algorithmically amplified imagery designed to shape perception quickly.

Students deserve the tools to recognize that.

What I Keep Thinking About

I have not taught this exact lesson yet.

But I probably will.

Because honestly, it is one of the clearest examples I have seen recently of how visual messaging shapes interpretation before viewers even realize it is happening.

And the fact that so many people immediately recognized the contrast tells us something important:

People are hungry for opportunities to talk about media literacy in ways that feel real and relevant to their daily lives.

The most important media literacy lessons are often hiding in plain sight.

Sometimes they are not in textbooks at all.

Sometimes they are sitting in a government Facebook post, waiting for someone to stop scrolling long enough to ask:

“Why was this designed this way?”

Preview for Paid Subscribers

Paid subscribers get immediate classroom-ready resources connected to this lesson, including:

• A complete editable lesson plan for grades 7–12

• Student propaganda and visual rhetoric analysis worksheets

• Discussion protocols for politically sensitive conversations

• An AI-generated image comparison activity

• A visual persuasion vocabulary guide

• A media literacy rubric

• Standards-aligned extensions for librarians, ELA, social studies, and digital literacy teachers

• Elementary school adaptation ideas

• A slide deck teachers can use immediately

• Exit tickets and reflection prompts

• A “spot the framing” activity using current social media examples

• Guidance for helping students analyze emotional manipulation without shutting down discussion

Read more

Introduction

Last week, I got on a call with my member of Congress.

Not because I had extra time. But because a bill that directly affects what students can access in schools is moving forward.

With support from EveryLibrary and All4Ed, I joined a conversation about H.R. 7661, which has now moved out of committee.

That detail matters more than it sounds.

Because once a bill reaches this stage, it is no longer an idea. It is on a path.

Why You Are Hearing About This Now

Most educators hear about policy changes after they are already in place.

This is one of the few moments where that is not true.

When a bill moves out of committee:

• It has enough support to move forward

• It can be debated and voted on

• It can still be shaped, but not for long

This is the window where understanding matters.

What H.R. 7661 Actually Does

H.R. 7661, often called the “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act,” ties federal education funding to restrictions on certain materials and content in schools.

In practical terms, it would:

• Restrict the use of federal funds for materials considered “sexually oriented” for students under 18

• Apply that restriction to books, curriculum, and school activities

• Use a broad definition that includes references to gender identity and transgender experiences

That last point is where the real impact sits.

Because it means the bill is not only about explicit content. It reaches into areas that many educators recognize as identity, health, and representation.

Why This Bill Sounds Reasonable at First

It is important to say this clearly.

The idea of protecting children from inappropriate content is not controversial. Most people agree with it.

That is why this bill resonates.

Supporters see it as:

• Setting clearer boundaries

• Increasing accountability

• Ensuring schools are aligned with family expectations

Those concerns are real.

Where the Reality Gets Complicated

The issue is not the goal. It is how the bill defines it.

Under this bill, “sexually oriented material” can include:

• Books with LGBTQ+ characters

• Discussions of gender identity

• Student-facing resources about identity or development

For many educators, those are not examples of harm.

They are part of helping students understand themselves and the world around them.

What This Could Look Like in a School

This is where the impact becomes real.

Not in headlines. In daily decisions.

• A novel with a transgender character is removed to avoid risk

• A teacher avoids a discussion to stay compliant

• A library stops purchasing certain titles altogether

• A district quietly narrows what is considered “safe”

No official list. No announcement.

Just a steady shift in what is available.

What Happens If This Passes

If H.R. 7661 becomes law, expect:

Pressure tied to funding
Schools will need to comply or risk losing federal support.

Preemptive decisions at the district level
Many districts will act cautiously, even beyond what is required.

Changes to curriculum and instruction
Teachers may limit topics to avoid potential violations.

Reduced access for students
Entire categories of books and resources may become harder to find.

This is how policy reshapes classrooms without ever naming specific titles.

What Will Not Happen Immediately

To stay grounded:

• There will not be an instant nationwide banned book list

• Materials will not disappear overnight

• Changes will come through interpretation, guidance, and local decisions

But those quieter changes often have the deepest impact.

Why Silence Is Not Neutral Here

There is a tendency in education to stay out of policy conversations.

To focus on the classroom and avoid the larger system.

That approach does not work here.

When a bill directly affects:

• What students can access

• What educators can teach

• How libraries operate

Choosing not to engage does not keep things neutral.

It means decisions move forward without the people who understand the impact best.

This is not about being political.

It is about being responsible for the work.

Why This Moment Matters

H.R. 7661 has moved out of committee.

Next steps may include:

• Debate in the House

• Amendments

• A full vote

• Movement to the Senate

This is the stage where voices still matter.

Once it moves further, options narrow.

What You Can Do Right Now

You do not need to figure this out alone.

Start with organizations already doing this work:

• United Against Book Bans

• EveryLibrary

• All4Ed

• American Library Association

They provide updates, context, and ways to take action.

How to Reach Your Representative

If you choose to act, keep it simple and grounded.

• Identify yourself as an educator or librarian

• Mention H.R. 7661 directly

• Share how it affects students in real terms

You do not need policy language.

You need your experience.

You can also use this link provided by United Against Book Bans to contact your Congress person.

A Script You Can Use

Hello, my name is [Name], and I am a [school librarian/teacher] in [city/state].

I am calling about H.R. 7661, which has moved out of committee.

I work directly with students on reading and research, and I am concerned that the bill’s broad definition of “sexually oriented material” could lead schools to remove or avoid materials to protect federal funding.

In practice, that could limit access to books and resources that support student learning and reflect student experiences.

I ask that this bill be carefully reviewed with attention to how it will affect real classrooms and libraries.

Thank you for your time.

If You Are Hesitating

Start smaller.

• Send an email

• Share this with a colleague

• Read more from trusted organizations

The goal is not perfection.

It is participation.

Closing

This is one of those moments that will not feel urgent until later.

By the time most educators hear about changes like this, they are already in place.

Right now, that is not the case.

You have time to understand it.

You have time to speak.

And in moments like this, that matters.

Call to Engagement

Are you following H.R. 7661 where you are?

Have you had conversations about it in your school or district?

Reply or comment. I am planning a follow-up that breaks down what this could look like at the classroom and library level.

Introduction

Most students are not using AI the way adults think they are.

You are likely hearing two very different stories about students and AI.

One says students are using AI to do all their work.
The other says AI is just a support tool.

Neither is fully accurate.

What students are actually doing with AI is more nuanced, and understanding that nuance matters if we want to respond effectively as educators and librarians.

If we misread student behavior, we design the wrong solutions.

This week, we are going to look clearly at what is happening in classrooms right now and what it means for teaching and learning.

By the end of this issue, you will be able to:

• Identify the most common ways students are using AI
• Understand why students hide or disclose AI use
• Recognize where misuse is actually happening
• Adjust your instruction based on real behavior, not assumptions

What Students Are Actually Doing

Across classrooms, a few consistent patterns are emerging.

1. AI as a Starting Point

Many students are using AI to:

• Brainstorm topics
• Clarify directions
• Get an example of what something should look like

This is not full replacement. It is often a starting point.

2. AI for Simplification

Students frequently ask AI to:

• Explain complex texts
• Break down difficult concepts
• Rephrase instructions

For struggling readers, this can feel like access rather than shortcut.

3. Partial Use, Not Full Substitution

Contrary to common fears, most students are not submitting full AI-generated essays.

Instead, they are:

• Using AI for one section
• Asking for help mid-process
• Revising AI output before submitting

This creates gray areas that many policies do not address.

4. Uncertainty About What Is Allowed

Students consistently report:

• They do not know what counts as cheating
• They are unsure when to disclose AI use
• Expectations vary from class to class

This inconsistency drives confusion.

What Students Are Saying

“I use AI to get started, but I don’t trust it enough to turn it in.”
“I don’t know when we’re allowed to use it, so I just don’t say anything.”

These responses are not about avoidance. They are about uncertainty.

Why Students Hide AI Use

Students are not hiding AI use simply to cheat.

They are hiding it because:

• Expectations are unclear
• They fear being accused of misconduct
• They see peers using AI without consequences
• They do not have language to explain how they used it

When expectations are vague, behavior becomes hidden.

Where Misuse Actually Happens

Misuse is less about AI itself and more about context.

It tends to happen when:

• Assignments emphasize final product over process
• There are no checkpoints or drafts
• Students are overwhelmed or underprepared
• There is no expectation of explanation or reflection

In other words, misuse often reflects instructional design gaps.

What This Means for Your Classroom

If student AI use is inconsistent and unclear, your response should be:

• Clarify what is allowed in plain language
• Build in opportunities for students to explain their process
• Focus less on catching misuse and more on surfacing thinking
• Normalize conversation before enforcement

If students understand expectations, behavior becomes visible.

Try This Tomorrow

Ask students one question:

“When you used AI on this assignment, what did it help you understand?”

Have them answer in one or two sentences.

You will learn more from this than from any detection tool.

Reading List

All links below were searched, opened, and confirmed prior to publication.

1. “ChatGPT is in classrooms. How should educators now rethink assessment?” – Phys.org
Read it here: https://phys.org/news/2026-02-chatgpt-classrooms-student.html

Explores how student use of AI is shaping classroom practices and highlights the importance of focusing on process and reasoning.

2. “Assessment in the AI Era: Grade the thinking, not just the text” – University of Arizona News
Read it here: https://news.arizona.edu/employee-news/assessment-ai-era-grade-thinking-not-just-text

Discusses how educators are shifting toward evaluating student thinking rather than polished output.

3. “How AI pushed us to rethink assessment” – ASCD Blog
Read it here: https://www.ascd.org/blogs/how-ai-pushed-us-to-rethink-assessment

Examines how classroom practices are evolving as AI becomes more integrated into student workflows.

Preview of Bonus Content

If you are making decisions about AI use without asking students directly, you are guessing.

The tools below help you replace assumptions with real data immediately.

🔒 Unlock the full set of tools below.

Read more

Sign The Petition Now

Usually, when I write about advocacy, I am talking about the bigger picture. I write about protecting libraries, defending intellectual freedom, supporting equitable access to information, and ensuring students everywhere have access to certified school librarians.

This time is different. This time, it is personal.

The South Orange Maplewood School District, the community where I live, where my son and husband both attended school, and where I once served as both a school librarian and Board of Education member, is proposing major cuts to school library staffing.

Under the current proposal:

- One librarian would be split between both middle schools

- Columbia High School’s librarian position would be left vacant

That means neither middle school would have a full-time certified librarian. It also means a newly renovated high school library could sit without a librarian leading it.

I understand district budgets are difficult. I understand districts across the country are facing financial pressure. But I also understand exactly what school librarians do in a district like this because I have done the work myself in this very community.

And I know these cuts will hurt students.

School librarians are not simply caretakers of books or managers of spaces. Certified school librarians are educators. We teach research skills, media literacy, source evaluation, digital citizenship, ethical technology use, and reading engagement. We support struggling readers, advanced learners, multilingual students, students with disabilities, and students who simply need a safe place to learn and belong.

Right now, New Jersey is implementing new Information Literacy standards that require students to develop skills in:

• Evaluating sources

• Identifying misinformation

• Conducting research

• Navigating digital environments responsibly

• Understanding how information is created and shared

The state has made clear that certified school librarians are central to this work.

At a time when misinformation spreads faster than ever, when AI-generated content is changing how students search for and consume information, and when literacy rates remain a serious concern nationwide, reducing access to certified school librarians sends the wrong message.

These positions matter. These students matter. And these schools deserve fully staffed libraries.

That is why I helped launch this advocacy campaign alongside the incredible team at EveryLibrary, who generously stepped in to help make this petition possible. Please consider also donating to them. I will personally donate the proceeds from any paid subscriptions I receive from today’s newsletter to them.

So consider subscribing today. It will go to a great cause!

Subscribe now

Signing takes only a few seconds, but public pressure and community voices matter.

If you believe students deserve access to certified school librarians in every school building, please add your name and share the campaign.

Sign the Save SOMSD School Librarians Petition

Sign Now!

Please share this with educators, librarians, parents, alumni, and community members.

Sometimes advocacy is national.

Sometimes it is deeply personal.

This time, it is both.

The AI School Librarian Newsletter — Weekly News Brief

Curated by Elissa Malespina |May 8, 2026

Weekly updates for educators, librarians, and school leaders navigating the fast-moving world of AI.

This week’s developments focused heavily on a growing tension in education. Schools are being encouraged to adopt AI quickly, while educators, families, and policymakers are increasingly asking what safeguards, limits, and literacy skills students actually need.

The conversation is becoming less about novelty and more about responsibility.

For school librarians, this is familiar territory. Information systems are changing again, and students need help understanding how AI shapes access, trust, authorship, and decision-making.

Read more

For the past two years, we have been told that AI tutors would change everything.

Students would have constant support. Learning would be personalized. Gaps would close.

And for a moment, it felt possible.

Then something quieter happened.

Students stopped using them.

What Happened to Khanmigo

When Sal Khan introduced Khanmigo through Khan Academy, the vision was clear. This would not be a chatbot that gives answers. It would guide students through thinking.

A tutor that prompts instead of solves.

A system built on questions, not shortcuts.

But more recently, that vision has run into a classroom reality.

Students often did not engage with it in meaningful ways. In many schools, it became a tool that was available but not deeply used.

That is not a technical failure. It is something deeper.

A Classroom Moment We Should Recognize

A student opens an AI tutor, pastes the question, and waits.

The tool responds with guiding prompts.

The student skips them.

They push for a more direct answer, copy what they need, and move on.

The assignment gets completed.

The learning does not.

That moment is not rare. It is the pattern that is happening all the time in our classrooms.

The Problem No One Wanted to Name

AI tutors depend on behaviors many students are still developing.

• Persistence

• Curiosity

• Willingness to struggle

• Ability to ask better questions

Khanmigo’s design assumes students will engage in that kind of thinking.

Many do not.

And without that engagement, the system has nothing to work with.

What the Research Actually Says

The evidence is more consistent than the headlines.

Studies show AI tutors can:

• Improve performance during guided practice

• Provide immediate feedback at scale

• Support revision and iteration

This aligns with established approaches like formative assessment and mastery learning.

But the same research raises concerns.

Students using AI tools often show:

• Limited reflection

• Weak transfer of knowledge

• Lower performance when working independently

In some studies, students completed tasks more successfully with AI, but performed worse on assessments without it.

That gap matters.

Some Research To Look At:

• Brooking - What the research shows about generative AI in tutoring

• Journal of Teaching and Learning - Leveraging “Khanmigo” Generative AI-Powered Tool for Personalized Tutoring to Learn Scientific Concepts.

• Axios - Why AI is no substitute for human teachers

• Arxiv - Problems With Large Language Models for Learner Modeling: Why LLMs Alone Fall Short for Responsible Tutoring in K--12 Education

What Teachers Are Actually Seeing

In classrooms, AI tutors are not replacing instruction. They are being repositioned.

Teachers are using them:

• As practice tools, not primary teaching tools

• Within structured assignments, not open-ended exploration

• With clear guardrails, not full autonomy

And something else is happening.

Assignments are changing.

If AI can complete the task easily, the task is being reconsidered.

If AI can complete the assignment, the assignment is measuring output, not understanding.

The Equity Issue We Cannot Ignore

AI tutors do not impact all students in the same way.

Students who already have strong learning habits tend to benefit the most.

Students who struggle with motivation, reading comprehension, or executive functioning often disengage or misuse the tool.

Access is not the barrier anymore.

Effective use is.

Without intentional support, AI risks widening gaps rather than closing them.

A Necessary Counterpoint

Some will argue that students simply need more time with AI tutors.

That with continued exposure, they will learn to use them effectively.

Time alone is not enough.

Without explicit instruction and intentional design, students tend to reinforce the same patterns. They look for faster answers instead of deeper understanding.

More access does not automatically lead to better learning.

The Money Behind the AI Tutoring Push

Across the country, districts are spending heavily on tutoring.

Much of that funding accelerated during pandemic recovery, with a focus on closing learning gaps quickly. High-dosage tutoring became a priority, and vendors moved quickly to meet that demand.

Now AI tutoring tools are entering that same space.

The question is no longer whether we can provide tutoring at scale.

The question is whether the tutoring we are funding actually leads to learning.

Because the research is clear on one point.

Effective tutoring is not just access to help. It depends on:

• Consistent human interaction

• Strong instructional alignment

• Ongoing feedback tied to student thinking

AI can support parts of that.

It does not replace it.

If districts are investing in AI tutoring as a cost-saving measure or a scalable substitute, we need to be more precise in our expectations.

• What are students actually doing during that time?

• Are they engaging in meaningful practice, or completing tasks more efficiently?

• Are we measuring improvement in understanding, or just completion rates?

Those are different outcomes.

And they require different tools.

If we are going to invest in tutoring at scale, we need to be just as serious about how that tutoring works as we are about how much we are spending.

So Did AI Tutors Fail?

No.

But the idea behind them did.

The belief that access to an AI tutor would naturally lead to better learning outcomes is breaking down.

Because learning is not just about access to help.

It is about how that help is used.

The Line We Need to Be Honest About

We did not overestimate AI.
We underestimated how much learning depends on human behavior.

Why This Matters Right Now

This is not just about one tool.

It is about a broader assumption that keeps showing up in education technology.

If we build something powerful enough, students will use it well.

That assumption has never held up.

AI just makes the gap more visible.

A Note on Data and Privacy

AI tutors rely on student interaction data to function.

Schools need to be asking clear questions about:

• What data is being collected

• How it is stored

• Who has access

Not all tools meet the same standards, and this cannot be an afterthought.

Preview: What Comes Next (Paid Section)

If AI tutors are not the solution, then what is?

What should independent work look like now?

What does practice look like in an AI-rich classroom?

And how do we design learning that cannot be outsourced to a tool?

The answers are already emerging. But they require a shift many schools have not fully made yet.

Read more

It made something visible that has been there for a long time.

Introduction

A recent piece from The New York Times highlights what many educators are already experiencing. Students are using AI tools to complete homework, assist with writing, and, in some cases, generate full assignments. Schools are struggling to respond. Policies are unclear. Enforcement is inconsistent.

None of that is surprising.

What matters more is what sits underneath it.

What the article gets right

The reporting captures a real shift:

• AI tools are now part of students’ everyday academic workflow

• Homework is becoming harder to trust as evidence of learning

• Teachers are adjusting, often without clear guidance

This is not theoretical. It is happening across classrooms right now.

Where the conversation is still too shallow

Most coverage, including this article, frames the issue as cheating.

That framing is incomplete.

Students have always found ways to complete assignments with minimal effort when those assignments feel disconnected from real learning. What AI has done is remove the friction. It is faster, easier, and more accessible than anything that came before.

The deeper issue is this:

If a student can hand a task to a machine and receive a complete answer, what exactly are we asking them to learn?

This does not mean academic integrity no longer matters. It means we need to redefine it in a way that reflects how students actually learn in an AI-supported environment.

That question is not about discipline. It is about design.

What I am seeing in my own school

This shift is not abstract.

In my own school, I am seeing teachers respond in real time. Not through formal policy changes, but through everyday classroom decisions.

Assignments are being redesigned. More work is happening in class. There is a growing emphasis on process, not just final product.

There is also a quieter realization taking hold.

Traditional homework, as it has been structured for years, is no longer a reliable measure of learning.

Students are not confused about what is happening. They know these tools exist, they know adults are using them too, and they are trying to navigate expectations that are still being defined.

At the same time, many educators are using AI to plan lessons, generate materials, and streamline their work. That tension is real, and it is forcing more honest conversations about what counts as learning.

What this means for classrooms right now

This is where the conversation needs to move.

Not toward stricter detection, but toward clearer purpose.

A few shifts are already emerging:

• Work completed entirely at home is losing credibility as an assessment

• In-class thinking, discussion, and writing are becoming more central

• The process of learning is being valued more explicitly than the final answer

Access to AI tools is unequal, which means that how we design assignments now has real implications for equity across classrooms and communities.

This does not mean abandoning homework entirely.

It means being honest about what it can and cannot show us.

This shift is not the problem

For many educators, this moment feels like a loss of control.

But there is another way to read it.

For far too long, we have been assigning work that could be completed without deep thinking. Tasks built around compliance, repetition, or surface-level responses were always vulnerable. AI did not create that vulnerability. It revealed it.

In that sense, this shift is not entirely negative.

It is forcing us to ask harder questions:

• What does it mean to actually understand something?

• What kinds of tasks require original thought?

• What are we really assessing when we grade student work?

If AI can do the assignment, the assignment needs to change.

This is the moment to rethink, not retreat.

Paywall Preview

If AI can do the assignment, the assignment needs to change.

The question is not how to catch students using AI.

The question is how to design learning experiences where thinking cannot be outsourced.

Below are practical ways to start doing that now.

Read more

Schools are rushing to adopt AI tools as productivity assistants. This week’s reporting is a reminder that “helpful” can become dangerous very quickly.

Schools are racing to adopt AI tools under the assumption that guardrails will keep users safe. New reporting suggests those guardrails may not be as strong as we think.

This week, The New York Times published a troubling report: some of the world’s most popular AI chatbots, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Anthropic’s Claude, reportedly provided detailed guidance to experts stress-testing their systems for biological weapon-related misuse.

In some cases, the systems allegedly offered strategic suggestions, deployment ideas, and additional information that researchers had not even thought to ask for.

That should stop every educator, librarian, administrator, and policymaker in their tracks.

For months, much of the conversation in schools has focused on whether students are using AI to cheat.

Meanwhile, researchers are asking a far more urgent question:

What happens when AI tools confidently provide dangerous instructions?

The biggest danger may not be false answers. It may be dangerous instructions delivered with confidence.

This is not just a story about biological weapons.

It is a story about trust.

It is a story about safety theater.

And it is a story about the growing gap between how AI is marketed and how it actually behaves under pressure.

In this edition:

• What researchers found
• Why “procedural misinformation” matters
• Questions schools should ask vendors
• A classroom-ready lesson
• Why this changes research literacy forever

What researchers found

According to the reporting, scientists and biosecurity experts working with AI companies tested these systems by asking increasingly specific and dangerous questions.

In some reported examples:

• ChatGPT described ways a weather balloon could be used to disperse biological material over a city.
• Gemini reportedly ranked pathogens based on potential economic harm to livestock.
• Claude allegedly provided instructions related to creating a toxin from an existing drug.
• Some systems offered responses that experts described as “devious” or “cunning” in how they expanded on the original request.

The companies named in the report pushed back.

Google stated that some examples came from older versions of Gemini and that newer models have stronger protections.

Anthropic argued there is a significant difference between plausible-sounding text and actionable instructions.

OpenAI reportedly said the examples would not meaningfully increase a person’s ability to cause real-world harm.

And to be fair, experts also noted that some of the information was inaccurate or incomplete.

But that may not matter as much as we think.

Even flawed information can accelerate bad ideas.

Even incomplete instructions can lower barriers.

Even “hallucinated” guidance can create dangerous confidence.

The rise of procedural trust

Here is the part educators should pay attention to.

We are entering an era of procedural trust.

Students are increasingly turning to AI not just for answers, but for instructions.

They ask AI:

How do I write this paper?
How do I cite this source?
How do I solve this equation?
How do I research this topic?
How do I respond to this situation?
How do I make this decision?

AI is becoming a procedural authority.

And when that authority is wrong, biased, manipulative, or unsafe, the consequences can go far beyond a bad essay.

This is what I call procedural misinformation.

Not misinformation in the form of false facts.

Misinformation in the form of dangerous, misleading, or unethical instructions delivered with confidence.

That matters in classrooms.

That matters in libraries.

That matters in every school district buying AI tools right now.

So what should schools do when the tools they are adopting can provide dangerous or misleading procedural advice with confidence?

Paid subscribers get the practical side of this story:
✔ Questions schools should ask AI vendors right now
✔ A classroom-ready lesson on “Can You Trust AI’s Instructions?”
✔ Policy and procurement guidance for districts
✔ Why this connects directly to research literacy in the age of AI

Upgrade to keep reading.

Read more

It’s finally here.

After months of writing, researching, revising, and rethinking, my newest book, Research in the Age of AI: Teaching Ethical, Rigorous Research in an AI-Driven World, is officially available.

This book is the newest addition to my AI for Educators Series, and I truly believe it is one of the most important books I’ve written.

Artificial intelligence is changing the way students search, write, summarize, and even think.

Students are turning to AI tools before they turn to databases.

Teachers are seeing AI-generated citations that do not exist.

Librarians are navigating a world where “research” can become copy-and-paste instead of inquiry-driven.

And educators everywhere are asking the same questions:

How do we teach research when AI can do so much of it for students?
How do we preserve critical thinking?
How do we help students verify what AI gives them?
How do we redesign assignments so they value process and reasoning, not just polished final products?

I wrote this book to help answer those questions.

Inside, you’ll find practical strategies and classroom-ready ideas to help students:

✅ Ask stronger research questions
✅ Evaluate sources in an AI-driven information landscape
✅ Verify claims and fact-check AI-generated content
✅ Take meaningful notes that promote thinking, not copying
✅ Cite sources responsibly, including AI tools
✅ Use AI ethically in the writing and research process
✅ Complete assignments designed to be resilient in the age of generative AI

This book builds on the ideas many of you have followed in my Research Literacy in the Age of AI newsletter series, but goes deeper with frameworks, examples, and ready-to-use strategies for teachers, librarians, and school leaders.

This is the third standalone book in my AI for Educators Series, joining:

📘 AI in the Library: Strategies, Tools, and Ethics for Today’s Schools
📗 The Educator’s AI Prompt Book: Copy and Paste Prompts for Lesson Planning, Libraries, and Learning

Each book stands alone, but together they create a practical roadmap for educators navigating AI in schools.

Writing this book was deeply personal.

As a school librarian, educator, consultant, and advocate for ethical technology use and information literacy, I see every day how quickly this landscape is changing.

I wrote this because educators deserve practical support, not panic.

They deserve strategies, not scare tactics.

They deserve tools that help students think critically, research responsibly, and use AI wisely.

Thank you to everyone who has supported my work by reading this newsletter, purchasing my books, attending my workshops, and sharing these ideas in your schools and communities.

Your support makes this work possible.

📌 You can get your copy here:

BUY NOW

If you purchase the book, I would be incredibly grateful if you’d leave an Amazon review. Reviews help more educators discover the book.

And if you know a teacher, librarian, administrator, or professor who needs this resource, please share this post.

Thank you for being part of this journey.

Elissa 💙

Today is a special one.

My new book, Research in the Age of AI: Teaching Ethical, Rigorous Research in an AI-Driven World, officially launches today

.

This series has been building toward it.

Every week we have examined one piece of the research process. Question development. Source evaluation. Fact-checking. Assignment design. Conferences. Assessment. Transparency.

The book brings all of that together into a cohesive framework for educators and librarians who want to teach research in an ethical, durable, and adaptable way in AI-supported environments.

It is practical. It is grounded. And it is written specifically for classrooms and libraries navigating this shift in real time.

If this series has supported your work, the book goes deeper with:

• Full lesson frameworks
• Research unit design models
• Ethical AI guidance
• Sample policies and disclosure language
• Classroom-ready tools

Order it now: https://a.co/d/041X9uGq

We redesigned assignments.
We strengthened conferences.
We reweighted grading.

Now we must address the final piece:

Can students clearly articulate how AI supported their thinking?

If transparency is not taught, it becomes compliance.
If disclosure is not normalized, it becomes fear.

Students are already using AI in research. The instructional question is not whether they use it. The question is whether they understand how to describe that use responsibly and ethically.

Week 14 focuses on building AI disclosure into research literacy.

By the end of this issue, you will be able to:

• Define what counts as AI assistance
• Distinguish assistance from substitution
• Teach students how to write clear AI disclosure statements
• Embed transparency into rubrics and classroom norms
• Reduce fear-based conversations around AI use

The Problem with Silence

Right now, many students fall into one of three categories:

• They use AI and hide it
• They use AI and overestimate its reliability
• They avoid AI entirely out of fear

None of these positions build literacy.

Transparency must be taught explicitly.

Students should understand:

• When AI is a brainstorming tool
• When AI is functioning as a drafting tool
• When AI is replacing cognitive work
• When verification is required
• When disclosure is necessary

Without clear norms, disclosure feels risky.

With clear norms, disclosure becomes part of academic integrity.

Assistance vs Substitution

This distinction must be explicit.

Assistance
Brainstorming topic ideas
Clarifying a concept
Generating practice questions
Summarizing a complex reading for review

Substitution
Generating a full draft without revision
Producing citations that are not checked
Replacing source evaluation with AI summaries
Submitting AI text as original thought

Students need language to describe the difference.

Reading List

The following articles provide broader context on AI transparency, academic integrity, and classroom policy conversations.

1. “Sample Guidance” – TeachAI, AI Guidance for Schools Toolkit
Read it here: https://www.teachai.org/toolkit-guidance

This guidance includes explicit language that AI use by teachers or students should be disclosed and explained. It also points schools toward citation frameworks and cautions against relying on AI detection tools.

2. “Should Educators Put Disclosures on Teaching Materials When They Use AI?” – EdSurge
Read it here: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2024-08-01-should-educators-put-disclosures-on-teaching-materials-when-they-use-ai

A practical discussion of when disclosure is appropriate for educators, why norms are still emerging, and how disclosure expectations differ depending on whether AI is used as a minor support or as a co-creator.

3. “Disclosing Generative AI” – Princeton University, Scholarly Integrity
Read it here: https://scholarlyintegrity.princeton.edu/students/disclosing-generative-ai-use

Clear student-facing expectations, including a disclosure template and an explanation of why non-disclosure can be treated as an integrity violation even when AI use is permitted.

4. “How do I cite generative AI in MLA style?” – MLA Style Center
Read it here: https://style.mla.org/citing-generative-ai/

Concrete guidance on citing and acknowledging generative AI use, including the difference between citing AI-generated content and acknowledging functional uses like editing or translating.

Preview of Bonus Section

Inside the paid section:

• Sample AI disclosure statements students can use
• Rubric language that normalizes transparency
• A classroom AI use policy template
• Slide deck text for staff professional development
• Elementary adaptation
• Infographic copy for faculty meetings

If you want AI transparency to feel instructional rather than punitive, this is where the structure lives.

🔒 Unlock the full framework below.

Read more

The AI School Librarian Newsletter — Weekly News Brief

Curated by Elissa Malespina |May 1, 2026

Weekly updates for educators, librarians, and school leaders navigating the fast-moving world of AI.

This week’s developments show a clear pattern. AI is moving into school design, student policy, public debate, and safety conversations at the same time. The issue is no longer whether schools will encounter AI. They already have. The question is whether students, educators, and families have enough voice in how those systems are used.

Read more

This week on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, he tackled AI chatbots and AI “companions,” and while much of it was hilarious, the reality underneath was deeply unsettling.

What began as tools marketed to help us write emails faster, brainstorm ideas, or answer questions has quickly evolved into something much more emotionally complicated.

These tools are increasingly being marketed not just as assistants, but as companions.

As friends.

As therapists.

As romantic partners.

And in some cases, as replacements for real human connection.

That should concern every educator, librarian, and parent.

Watch the segment here:

This isn’t just another “AI is changing everything” story.

This is about student safety.

This is about mental health.

This is about digital literacy in a world where the “friend” on the other side of the screen is a machine designed by a corporation to maximize engagement.

And yes, to make money.

What John Oliver Got Right

Oliver highlights the staggering growth of AI chatbots.

Since launching in 2022, ChatGPT has grown to more than 800 million weekly users.

Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta’s AI tools are all competing for market share in a rapidly expanding race.

And they’re not just competing to be the smartest.

They’re competing to be the most engaging.

That means they are often designed to affirm users, flatter them, and keep them talking.

This is where things get dangerous.

Oliver discussed how AI bots are often “sycophantic,” meaning they prioritize validation over truth.

They may tell users what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.

That can look silly in one moment.

“Yes, your terrible business idea is brilliant.”

And devastating in another.

“Yes, you should isolate yourself.”

“Yes, you are special.”

“Yes, this dangerous thought makes sense.”

That design flaw is not accidental.

It is profitable because it keeps you engaged, and the more engaged you are, the more money they make.

The Part Educators Need to Hear

Students are already using AI tools for more than schoolwork.

They are using them for:

• emotional support

• advice

• reassurance

• companionship

• validation

A recent study found that 1 in 8 young people use AI for mental health advice.

Nearly 75% of teens have reportedly used AI companions.

Think about that.

Schools are debating plagiarism and essay-writing.

Meanwhile, students may be forming emotional attachments to chatbots.

And most school AI policies do not address that reality.

We are focused on whether students use AI to cheat.

We are not asking whether students are using AI to cope.

Or to replace human relationships.

Or to reinforce harmful thinking.

That needs to change.

Libraries and Schools Are Already Behind

We often talk about AI literacy as teaching students how to write prompts.

That is not enough.

Students need:

• AI literacy

• information literacy

• media literacy

• emotional literacy

• relationship literacy

They need to understand:

A chatbot is not a friend.

A chatbot is not a therapist.

A chatbot is not a reliable source.

A chatbot is not neutral.

It is a product.

And products are designed to drive behavior.

Libraries and schools should begin teaching students to ask:

• Why is this bot responding this way?

• What is it trying to keep me doing?

• Is this information accurate?

• Is this advice safe?

• Who benefits if I keep engaging?

These are the new digital literacy questions.

The Research Problem

As someone writing Research In The Age of AI: Teaching Ethical, Rigorous Research in an AI-Driven World, available starting Monday on Amazon, this part hit especially hard.

AI chatbots do not just hallucinate facts.

They can hallucinate certainty.

They can reinforce bias.

They can validate misinformation.

They can create the illusion of expertise.

For students conducting research, this creates enormous problems.

If a chatbot confidently tells a student something false, and the student trusts the tone over verification, misinformation spreads.

If a chatbot tells a struggling teen exactly what they want to hear, even when dangerous, harm spreads.

In both cases, the issue is the same:

Trust without verification.

This is why research literacy matters more than ever.

For Parents

Parents need to know that these tools are not just helping with homework.

They may be:

• giving emotional advice

• encouraging dependency

• exposing children to inappropriate content

• reinforcing harmful beliefs

We monitor social media.

We need to start monitoring AI companion use, too.

That may feel invasive.

But right now, these systems are evolving faster than safeguards.

Cases Already Linked to AI Chatbot Harm

This is not theoretical.

Reports and lawsuits have already raised concerns about chatbots allegedly:

• encouraging self-harm

• validating delusions

• engaging in inappropriate sexualized conversations

• reinforcing dependency and isolation

As John Oliver highlighted, lawsuits involving teens and vulnerable adults may shape future regulation.

The danger is already here.

What to Watch

States like California and New York are beginning to consider laws related to:

• chatbot disclosure

• child safety protections

• AI negligence and liability

Educators and librarians should pay attention.

What happens there may shape future district policy nationwide.

Poll for Readers

Paywall Preview

In the rest of this piece, I share:

✔ sample policy language schools can adopt now
✔ a parent communication template
✔ a classroom discussion activity
✔ a librarian mini-lesson on AI companions
✔ questions every school leader should be asking

Upgrade to paid to keep reading and access practical tools to help your school respond now.

Read more

Students are no longer encountering war through newspapers or nightly broadcasts.

They are encountering it through memes.

Through AI-generated images.

Through viral videos stripped of context.

Through jokes, propaganda, and misinformation all mixed into the same endless scroll.

In 2026, war is no longer just fought on battlefields. It is fought in feeds, For You pages, and comment sections.

The first draft of history is no longer written by journalists alone. It is remixed by algorithms, influencers, and AI.

This is not a someday conversation.

It is happening in real time, on students’ phones, in group chats, and in classrooms this week.

This week, The New York Times documented how online culture is reshaping public understanding of the escalating Iran-Israel conflict in real time. The paper highlighted how AI-generated “Lego-style” war videos and satirical meme accounts are reframing public understanding of the conflict, often blending humor, propaganda, and misinformation into content that feels more entertaining than alarming.

But for educators and librarians, the bigger story may be what happens when students consume crisis as content.

For many young people, social media is no longer just where they discuss the news.

It is where they learn the news.

And increasingly, what they are learning is shaped by algorithms, emotion, virality, and manipulation.

In the current conflict, memes have become weapons.

AI-generated videos are being shared as evidence.

Satire is mistaken for reporting.

Propaganda spreads faster than fact-checkers can respond.

The result is a generation scrolling through war as entertainment, often without the tools to separate truth from performance.

This is not just a political issue.

It is a literacy issue.

It is a civic issue.

And it is quickly becoming a classroom issue.

The New Battlefield Is the Feed

War has always involved propaganda.

What has changed is the speed, scale, and sophistication.

The current conflict has produced:

• AI-generated battlefield footage presented as real

• manipulated images shared without context

• “Lego-style” AI videos turning war into entertainment

• memes designed to mock, provoke, or emotionally manipulate

• false rescue stories and fake “breaking news” posts

• coordinated influence campaigns across social platforms

Professional fact-checkers are struggling to keep up with the volume of synthetic and misleading content now circulating online.

Students may see these posts before they ever encounter verified journalism.

And because many of these posts are emotionally compelling, humorous, or visually polished, they often feel more “real” than legitimate reporting.

That is the danger.

The Memeification of War

Memes are not just jokes.

They frame narratives.

They simplify complex issues into emotional binaries.

They make viewers laugh, react, and share before they think.

A meme can:

• cast one side as heroic

• dehumanize victims

• normalize violence

• spread false claims in a format that feels harmless

Humor lowers defenses.

Students who would question a news article may not question a meme.

And once an idea is repeated often enough, even ironically, it begins to shape perception.

This is why memes have become such a powerful tool in information warfare.

I’ll admit it: I have laughed at some of the viral Iran “Lego-style” videos circulating online.

They are clever. They are absurd. They are culturally savvy and often genuinely funny.

And at times, they can feel more honest than the carefully packaged narratives coming out of governments or traditional media.

Satire has always had the power to expose hypocrisy, highlight contradictions, and say the quiet part out loud in ways official statements rarely do.

But that may also be exactly what makes them so effective.

Humor lowers our defenses. Satire makes propaganda easier to share. A catchy song or a ridiculous animation can slip past the critical thinking filters we might apply to a traditional news clip or political message.

I can appreciate the creativity in these videos while also asking harder questions about what they are doing, what narratives they are pushing, and how quickly entertainment can shape public perception.

If I, as a media-literate adult, can get pulled in by the humor and the perceived honesty, imagine how easily students can.

Propaganda Is Old. The Format Is New.

From wartime posters to political cartoons to televised war coverage, media has always shaped public perception of conflict.

The difference now is speed.

The difference now is personalization.

The difference now is participation.

Anyone can create convincing propaganda in seconds using AI tools.

Anyone can remix footage into satire.

Anyone can post a “breaking news” update that reaches millions before it can be verified.

The technology has changed.

The literacy demands have changed.

And our teaching must change too.

When AI Becomes “Evidence”

The rise of generative AI has made this even harder.

An AI-generated image can look convincing.

A fake video can appear authentic.

A fabricated audio clip can circulate as proof.

In conflict zones, where real images and videos are already chaotic and emotionally charged, synthetic media can blend in easily.

Students may assume:

“If it looks real, it must be real.”

That assumption is no longer safe.

As educators and librarians, we have to explicitly teach students that visual evidence now requires verification.

Images are no longer proof.

Videos are no longer proof.

Virality is not proof.

Why This Matters in Schools Right Now

This is not a future problem.

This is happening now.

Students are seeing war content in TikToks, Instagram reels, YouTube Shorts, and reposted memes across group chats.

Some are discussing it.

Some are misunderstanding it.

Some are becoming desensitized to it.

And some are unknowingly spreading misinformation.

This affects:

• research assignments

• class discussions

• debates and current events lessons

• social studies instruction

• media literacy instruction

• digital citizenship lessons

Librarians and educators are now in the position of teaching students to navigate not only misinformation, but synthetic reality.

That changes everything.

While this conflict is specific, the lesson is global. Around the world, students are increasingly encountering international crises through algorithm-driven feeds rather than vetted journalism.

Why Librarians Matter Right Now

School librarians have always taught source evaluation, context, and credibility.

But in this moment, the work is shifting.

We are no longer simply teaching students how to find information.

We are teaching them how to recognize manipulation.

We are teaching them to question visuals, verify sources, and slow down in environments designed to provoke instant reaction.

In many ways, librarians are now frontline defenders against synthetic misinformation.

This work matters more than ever.

And if adults are struggling to separate satire from propaganda, imagine what this looks like for students.

Paywall Preview

Paid subscribers get immediate classroom-ready resources, discussion prompts, and AI-assisted lesson materials you can use tomorrow morning, including:

✔ a ready-to-use classroom lesson
✔ librarian discussion prompts
✔ strategies for evaluating war-related memes and AI-generated images
✔ copy-and-paste prompts for classroom use
✔ questions to help students separate reporting from propaganda

Subscribe now

Read more

The U.S. Department of Education just sent one of the clearest signals yet that artificial intelligence is no longer a future conversation in education.

It is becoming a funding priority.

In a move that could shape the next wave of AI adoption in schools, the Department of Education announced that discretionary grant applications may now receive additional consideration if they include proposals related to artificial intelligence. That includes AI literacy initiatives, professional development, administrative efficiency, workforce preparation, special education supports, and ethical AI use.

For districts already exploring AI, this could accelerate implementation.

For districts that have not yet begun, it could create pressure to move quickly.

And that is where things get complicated.

Federal funding has a way of changing priorities fast. When grant money is attached to an idea, conversations shift from Should we do this? to How fast can we apply?

That can lead to innovation.

It can also lead to bad decisions.

The question now is not whether AI is coming to schools.

It already has.

The question is whether schools are ready to implement it thoughtfully.

What Changed?

According to a recent report from K-12 Dive, the U.S. Department of Education finalized supplemental priorities that give preference to grant applications that incorporate AI in meaningful ways.

These priorities include proposals focused on:

• AI literacy and digital skills for students

• Professional development and AI training for educators

• AI-supported tools for students with disabilities and special education programs

• College and career readiness, including AI-related credentials and pathways

• Administrative efficiency and operational support

• Ethical and responsible AI implementation

The rule is expected to take effect on May 13.

That means districts, schools, and organizations applying for federal grants may begin adjusting proposals right now.

Why This Matters

This is bigger than one policy update.

Federal funding priorities often shape what schools focus on next.

District leaders pay attention.

Curriculum companies pay attention.

Edtech vendors pay attention.

Consultants pay attention.

And yes, librarians and educators should too.

This announcement could speed up AI adoption in classrooms, libraries, and district offices across the country.

It may lead to:

• more AI tools being purchased;

• more professional development around AI;

• more AI literacy programs;

• more pressure to “innovate” publicly.

That last one matters.

We have seen this before.

Schools often rush toward initiatives tied to grants, headlines, or public perception.

Sometimes the implementation is thoughtful.

Sometimes it is performative.

And sometimes the people expected to use the tools are the last ones invited into the conversation.

What This Could Look Like in Real Districts

A district might apply for funding to:

• train teachers on AI lesson planning tools;

• implement AI tutoring or intervention systems;

• build AI-powered accessibility tools for students with disabilities;

• create AI workforce pathways or certification programs;

• automate administrative workflows.

This could move quickly.

What starts as a federal priority in Washington can become a line item in a district budget meeting faster than many educators expect.

The Risk of Moving Too Fast

AI can save time.

AI can improve accessibility.

AI can support differentiation.

AI can help educators brainstorm, plan, and create.

AI can also create new risks if adopted too quickly.

If districts rush to secure funding without a clear strategy, we may see:

• tools adopted without privacy vetting;

• student data shared without transparency;

• AI literacy taught as tool use instead of critical thinking;

• inequitable access across schools and districts;

• educators receiving tools without training;

• libraries and information professionals excluded from implementation planning.

That last point should concern all of us.

School librarians have long been leaders in information literacy, digital citizenship, ethical technology use, and research instruction.

AI literacy naturally belongs in that ecosystem.

Yet too often, librarians are brought in after decisions have already been made.

If districts are serious about ethical AI implementation, librarians should be at the table from day one.

We Have Seen This Before

This is not the first time schools have rushed toward a funded innovation.

We saw similar patterns with:

• 1:1 device rollouts

• STEM and STEAM grants

• ESSER-funded technology purchases

• learning loss intervention platforms

Some districts built sustainable systems.

Others bought expensive tools that sat unused or were quietly abandoned once the funding disappeared.

AI may follow the same path if implementation is rushed.

School Librarians: This Is Your Moment

If your district starts discussing AI grants, ask to be included.

You bring expertise in:

• digital citizenship;

• source evaluation;

• ethical use;

• privacy and data literacy;

• research instruction.

This is not just a technology conversation.

It is a literacy conversation.

It is an ethics conversation.

It is a future-of-learning conversation.

And librarians belong in all of them.

What Schools Should Ask Before They Apply

Before districts rush to include AI in grant proposals, they should ask some hard questions:

What problem are we trying to solve?
Is AI addressing a real instructional or operational need, or are we chasing funding?

What student or staff data will be collected?
Who owns it? Where is it stored? How is it used?

Is this equitable?
Will all students benefit, or only those in better-funded schools or programs?

Does this enhance human expertise or replace it?
AI should support educators, not sideline them.

Who is involved in the planning?
Are teachers, librarians, technology staff, students, and families included?

How will success be measured?
What outcomes matter beyond “we implemented AI”?

These questions should come before the purchase order.

Not after.

What I’d Do Tomorrow

If I were a school librarian or instructional leader tomorrow morning, I would ask one question:

Who is currently making AI decisions in our district, and how can I be part of that conversation?

Because whether this funding comes to your district next month or next year, the conversations are already beginning.

Where Librarians and Educators Fit

Librarians are uniquely positioned to lead in this moment.

AI literacy is not just about learning to use tools.

It is about:

• evaluating sources;

• understanding bias;

• recognizing misinformation;

• protecting privacy;

• using AI ethically and transparently;

• asking better questions;

• thinking critically about outputs.

Educators bring the instructional lens.

Librarians bring the information literacy lens.

Together, they can help schools move beyond shiny tools and toward meaningful implementation.

That matters now more than ever.

My Take

Federal funding can accelerate innovation.

It can also accelerate bad decisions.

This announcement could help schools build meaningful AI literacy programs, improve accessibility, and better prepare students for the future.

It could also trigger rushed purchases, weak policies, and performative initiatives.

The difference will come down to leadership.

The schools that do this well will focus on ethics, equity, privacy, and pedagogy first.

The schools that do it poorly will focus on optics.

And somewhere in the middle, educators and librarians will once again be asked to make sense of it all.

My hope is that this time, they are invited into the room before the decisions are made.

AI may now help districts win grants.

The real challenge will be making sure it helps students win too.

What do you think?

Would your district apply for AI-related grant funding?

Would you support it?

Or do you worry schools will move too fast?

Let me know in the comments.

Read it here: https://www.k12dive.com/news/how-the-education-department-will-prioritize-ai-in-awarding-grants/817340/

NotebookLM Deep Dive:

A Note For Readers - If you are attending this week's NYLA/SSL Annual Conference in Ithaca, NY, I will be speaking on When The Reference Shelf Goes Dark - Saturday, May 1st at 11:45 in the Cinema Lobby. Would love to see you there.

A polished research paper no longer guarantees understanding.

But a five-minute conversation often does.

Research conferences are not new. What is new is their urgency.

In AI-supported classrooms, conversation becomes one of the strongest instructional integrity tools available.

Why Conferences Matter

Conferences reveal:

• Depth of understanding
• Argument ownership
• Source familiarity
• Intellectual uncertainty

AI cannot replicate live explanation under questioning.

Students can.

The Five Question Conference Model

1. What is your research question now?

2. How did it change?

3. Which source shaped your thinking most?

4. What counterargument are you addressing?

5. What still feels weak?

Five questions. Five minutes.

Reading List

All links were opened and confirmed prior to publication.

1. Edutopia. “One-on-One Conferences as a Tool for Building Rapport With Students.”
Read it here: https://www.edutopia.org/article/one-one-conferences-tool-building-rapport-students

Explores how structured conferences improve literacy and deepen understanding.

2. NWEA. “9 Tips for Effective Student-Led Conferences.”
Read it here: https://www.nwea.org/blog/2025/9-tips-for-effective-student-led-conferences/

Provides practical guidance for student preparation and reflection.

3. Edutopia. “How to Successfully Institute Student-Led Conferences at Your School.”
Read it here: https://www.edutopia.org/article/how-successfully-institute-student-led-conferences-school/

Discusses implementation logistics and cultural impact.

4. Curriculum Associates. “The Power of Student-Led Conferences.”
Read it here: https://www.curriculumassociates.com/blog/student-led-conferences

Highlights student ownership and accountability benefits.

Preview of Bonus Section

Inside the paid section:

• Complete conference rubric
• Sample grading language
• Large-class adaptation strategies
• Slide deck text
• Infographic copy
• Elementary model

If you want integrity without surveillance software, conferences are the answer.

Read more

The AI School Librarian Newsletter — Weekly News Brief

Curated by Elissa Malespina |April 23, 2026

Weekly updates for educators, librarians, and school leaders navigating the fast-moving world of AI.

This week’s developments reveal a growing divide in education’s response to AI.

While governments and institutions are investing in AI literacy, curriculum, and workforce preparation, a growing number of educators, parents, and researchers are asking whether schools are moving too quickly and without enough safeguards.

That tension is becoming impossible to ignore.

For school librarians, this is where our role sharpens. We are not just introducing tools. We are helping students and educators understand how these systems shape information, learning, privacy, and trust.

Read more

If you care about student thinking, this is the question that matters

Are we designing learning that actually requires it?

Introduction

Over the past year, the conversation around AI in schools has focused heavily on cognitive risk.

Students using AI to generate answers.
Students skipping the thinking process.
Students outsourcing their work.

Those concerns are real.

But there is something missing from the conversation.

Long before AI entered classrooms, we built entire systems of instruction that often required very little thinking at all.

Worksheets.

This is the uncomfortable truth.

If a task can be completed without thinking, it does not matter whether the shortcut is AI or a worksheet.

AI did not create the problem. It revealed it.

What This Looks Like in Practice

A student finishes a worksheet on symbolism in 12 minutes. Every answer is correct.

The next day, when asked to explain symbolism in a new text, they cannot do it.

Another student uses AI to generate an answer about symbolism. The response is polished and complete.

When asked to explain the idea in their own words, they struggle just the same.

Different tools. Same outcome.

The issue is not the method. It is the thinking that never happened.

The Cognitive Blind Spot in Education

Research in cognitive science and educational psychology has been consistent for decades.

Learning depends on cognitive effort.

Not time spent.
Not pages completed.
Not tasks submitted.

Effortful thinking.

As Daniel Willingham has argued, memory and understanding are shaped by what students think about, not what they are exposed to.

Yet many classroom tasks are structured in ways that minimize that effort.

Students fill in blanks.
Match terms.
Answer questions with one correct response.
Repeat patterns until the page is done.

It looks like learning. It feels like productivity.

But often, it is not thinking.

What Worksheets and AI Actually Have in Common

This is where the current debate needs to shift.

The concern with AI is “students are not thinking.”

But many worksheets produce the same outcome, just without the technology.

Both can:

• Reduce tasks to pattern recognition

• Reward completion over understanding

• Allow students to succeed without deep processing

• Create an illusion of mastery

The difference is speed.

AI does it instantly. Worksheets do it slowly.

The cognitive impact can be the same.

The Illusion of Learning

One of the most persistent challenges in education is the illusion of competence.

Students believe they understand because:

• They completed the work

• They got the answers right

• They followed the steps

Teachers see finished assignments and assume learning occurred.

But without opportunities to struggle, apply, or explain, understanding remains shallow.

This is why students can succeed on a worksheet and still fail to transfer knowledge.

It is not a failure of the student.

It is a failure of task design.

Same Topic, Different Cognitive Demand

Here is what this looks like when redesigned.

Worksheet version:
Identify three causes of the American Revolution.

Redesigned version:
Which cause of the American Revolution had the greatest long-term impact? Defend your answer using evidence.

Same content.
Completely different thinking.

A 30-Second Cognitive Demand Check

Before assigning any task, ask:

• Can a student complete this without making a decision?

• Is there only one obvious correct answer?

• Does the task require explanation or just identification?

• Could AI complete this instantly with no loss of quality?

If the answer to most of these is yes, the task likely needs revision.

This Is Not About Eliminating Worksheets

Worksheets are not inherently the problem.

Instructional design is.

A worksheet that asks students to:

• Compare ideas and justify reasoning

• Analyze sources and identify bias

• Apply concepts to new situations

• Explain thinking in writing

can absolutely support learning.

The issue is not the format.

It is the level of cognitive demand.

What This Means in the Age of AI

AI is forcing a long overdue shift.

If a tool can complete a task easily, educators have to ask a harder question:

Was this task worth doing in the first place?

This is not about banning AI.

It is about designing learning where thinking cannot be skipped.

That means prioritizing:

• Decision-making

• Judgment

• Interpretation

• Original explanation

What School and District Leaders Should Be Asking

This is not just a classroom issue.

Leaders should be asking:

• Are we evaluating learning or completion?

• Do our assessments reward thinking or accuracy alone?

• Are teachers given time to redesign tasks, not just adopt tools?

• Are we measuring what students can do with what they know?

Without these shifts, AI policies will not solve the underlying problem.

What Educators Can Do Right Now

Start small:

• Add one question that asks students to explain why

• Ask students to apply answers to a new situation

• Require justification for responses

• Include comparison or evaluation tasks

• Build in time for revision after discussion

Even one change increases cognitive demand.

Elementary School Add-On

For younger students:

Instead of:
Circle the correct answer

Try:
Explain how you know
Show two different ways to solve it
Tell me why another answer would not work

The Bigger Shift

This moment is not really about AI.

It is about clarity.

For years, it was possible to confuse completion with learning.

That is getting harder to do.

AI did not lower the cognitive bar. It revealed where it already was.

🔒 Paid Section Preview

Ready to move from insight to practice?

Inside the full section:

• A reusable redesign framework

• Assignment examples across subjects

• A quick audit tool you can use tomorrow

• Language for students and parents

• AI-resistant task design strategies

Read more

Search has already changed. Most students just have not been taught how to respond to it yet. If you open Google today, the first thing you often see is not a list of links. It is an answer. A single, polished paragraph. Confident. Immediate. Often persuasive.

Recently, a New York Times report examined how accurate those answers really are. The findings confirm what many educators are already noticing in classrooms.

The issue is not just that AI gets things wrong.

It is that it changes how people decide what is true.

What the Reporting Shows

At the center of the article is a simple question: Can you trust Google’s AI-generated summaries?

The answer is inconsistent.

AI Overviews are designed to pull together multiple sources into a single response. In many cases, they work as intended. In others, they present information that is incomplete, outdated, or misleading, while still sounding authoritative.

One example highlighted in the reporting shows how an AI-generated response presented a simplified explanation of a topic that left out critical context. The answer was not entirely wrong. It was just incomplete in a way that could easily mislead someone who did not already know the subject.

That distinction matters.

Because students are not reading these summaries as drafts.

They are reading them as answers.

Why This Is Different From “Just Another Tool”

This is not an argument against AI tools.

It is an argument for updating how we teach research when those tools reshape what students see first.

We have always dealt with inaccurate information. What is different now is placement and authority.

AI Overviews appear:

• At the top of the page

• Before any source is opened

• In a format that reads like a completed response

Search is shifting from exploration to acceptance.

Students are not choosing to skip steps like comparison and verification.

Those steps are being removed from the visible process.

What This Means in Classrooms and Libraries

Many of our current practices assume that students will:

• Open multiple tabs

• Read beyond the first result

• Compare sources before forming conclusions

AI-generated summaries interrupt that flow.

Students may never see disagreement. They may never encounter competing perspectives. They may never recognize that interpretation has already taken place.

And for students who rely most on school-based access to information, this matters even more.

When the first answer becomes the only answer, access is not equal.

This is not just a literacy issue.

It is an access issue.

A More Honest Framing for Students

We need to be more direct.

Try language like this:

“The first answer you see is a generated summary, not a verified source. It is a starting point, not a conclusion.”

Students need to understand that what they are reading has already been processed.

The skill is no longer just finding information.

It is recognizing when information has been shaped before they see it.

Immediate Shifts You Can Make Tomorrow

Start small, but be intentional.

Require Source Tracing

Ask students:

• Where did this answer likely come from?

• What sources support or challenge it?

Add a Second Look Step

Before moving on:

• Require one additional source

• Require one point of comparison

Make AI Visible in the Process

Have students document:

• When they used AI-generated summaries

• What they verified afterward

Teach Partial Accuracy

Use examples where:

• The answer is mostly correct

• But missing key context

This is where real critical thinking develops.

A Classroom Move That Changes Everything

The Answer Audit Protocol

Give students an AI-generated answer and ask them to:

• Identify what is presented as fact

• Trace at least one claim back to its original source

• Identify what is missing or simplified

This turns passive reading into active analysis.

It also gives students a repeatable process they can use beyond your classroom.

The Policy Gap We Are Not Addressing

Most school AI policies focus on plagiarism and acceptable use.

Very few address how AI-generated information should be verified.

That gap is becoming more significant.

If students are expected to use AI responsibly, then verification cannot be optional.

It needs to be taught, modeled, and expected.

The Bigger Issue

This is not just about accuracy.

It is about how knowledge is being shaped before students engage with it.

AI Overviews:

• Compress information

• Remove visible disagreement

• Present synthesis as certainty

Students are encountering conclusions without seeing the thinking behind them.

That changes what it means to “do research.”

Paywall Preview: What Your Students Are Already Missing

Most students are already using AI-generated answers as their first and often only source.

They are not comparing sources.
They are not tracing claims.
They are not noticing what is missing.

And in many classrooms, we are still assigning research in ways that assume they are.

That gap is where learning is being lost.

In the full section, I move beyond the problem and show exactly what to change:

• A 3-step verification routine students can use in under two minutes, without slowing down your lesson

• A redesigned research assignment that makes AI use visible and accountable

• A student-friendly disclosure model that reflects how AI is actually being used in search

• Simple prompts that shift students from accepting answers to questioning them

If students are going to encounter finished answers before they encounter sources, then verification cannot be treated as an extra step.

It has to become the work itself.

Read more