A sweeping policy analysis from G20 education experts reveals a critical blind spot in how schools are adopting artificial intelligence: technology alone cannot create equity, and in many cases, it risks deepening existing gaps between wealthy and underserved students. The collaborative report, developed through the G20 Education Dialogue, argues that AI does not independently reshape education but instead amplifies whatever institutional structures and choices already exist within a school system.

Does AI Actually Create More Educational Equity or Less?

The short answer, according to the G20 experts, is neither, unless deliberate human choices guide its use. The report acknowledges AI's potential for personalized learning and systemic efficiency, yet warns of serious risks including algorithmic bias, deepening inequity, and the false belief that technology can replace human educators. This dual nature of AI in schools reflects a broader pattern: technology amplifies whatever values and priorities a school system already holds. If a system is equitable and well-resourced, AI tools can enhance that work. If a system is fragmented and under-resourced, AI can widen the gaps.

The timing of this analysis matters. The United Nations' 2025 Sustainable Development Goals report found that only 35 percent of global education targets are on track, with nearly half moving too slowly and 18 percent actually moving backward. Education remains one of the most powerful levers for sustainable development, advancing environmental literacy, economic opportunity, and social inclusion. Yet the rapid expansion of AI is transforming how knowledge is produced and accessed, creating both promise and peril.

What Are the Core Challenges G20 Experts Identified?

The G20 report identifies four foundational issues that schools and policymakers must address before or alongside AI adoption:

• Fragmented Research: Education research is produced across universities, international organizations, think tanks, consultancies, and private corporations, each with different agendas and definitions of what "education" means. This fragmentation makes it difficult to build coherent, equitable policies around AI integration.
• The Digital Divide Persists: Access to technology and quality internet remains unequal across regions and income levels. Without addressing this multidimensional gap, AI tools will only benefit students who already have advantages.
• Teacher Preparation Lags Behind: Educators need AI literacy as a critical competency, yet most teachers are not being trained to understand how AI works, where it can help, and where it poses risks. The report redefines teaching as formation and ethical mediation, not mere content transmission.
• Time and Temporality Are Overlooked: Educational reforms often ignore the multiple timescales on which learning actually happens. Biographical, institutional, historical, and affective dimensions of education cannot be reduced to policy cycles or performance metrics.

The experts stress that contemporary educational reforms frequently neglect these temporal dimensions, rushing to adopt AI without understanding how it interacts with student development, institutional change, and evolving AI capabilities themselves.

How Should Schools Rethink Their Approach to AI and Teaching?

Rather than treating AI as a solution to be plugged into existing classrooms, the G20 report proposes a fundamental rethinking of education research and practice. The experts recommend returning to foundational questions: Who is being educated? What is the purpose? For whom? How? And for what purpose? These questions do not reduce complexity but help reorient inquiry toward ethical and political stakes.

The report also calls for longitudinal research designs that track cohorts of learners and educators over 5 to 10 years, capturing how AI-mediated learning interacts with developmental trajectories and shifting institutional contexts. Historical and comparative methods can examine how previous technological reforms, such as computers and the internet, played out over decades, identifying recurring patterns of adoption and unintended consequences.

For educators specifically, the report argues for redefining their role. Teachers should be positioned as designers of meaning and ethical mediators rather than transmitters of content. This shift requires AI literacy across all developmental stages, from primary school through higher education, so educators can make informed decisions about when and how to use these tools responsibly.

What Policy Framework Do Experts Recommend?

The G20 report proposes a multidimensional policy framework aligned with five key pillars to bridge the digital divide and ensure inclusive learning pathways. This framework addresses epistemic justice, meaning that all communities, especially those in the Global South, have a voice in how AI is developed and deployed in education. Data sovereignty is another critical component, ensuring that student data is protected and that communities retain control over how their information is used.

The report concludes with a powerful assertion: education should be understood as a strategic steering mechanism. Human choices, not technology alone, will determine whether AI fosters equitable, sustainable, and just futures for sustainable development. This framing shifts responsibility away from the technology itself and back to the people and institutions making decisions about how to use it.

The G20 experts are not arguing against AI in education. Rather, they are arguing for intentionality, equity, and a return to fundamental questions about what education is for and who it serves. Without that foundation, AI will simply amplify the inequities that already exist.