Editor's Note: Eduardo Velez is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and a visiting professor at Kobe University. Wang Yan is the director of the international exchange department at the National Institute of Education Sciences, and Chi Jin is an associate professor at the Center for Teacher Education Research at Beijing Normal University. The article reflects the authors' opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

When many schools and universities closed due to the COVID-19 outbreak, governments and education institutions resorted to online education to ensure that students' learning was not disrupted. 

This may be effective for many, but certainly not for all. Low-income countries or regions are facing particular challenges that require special attention.

Forty years ago, with the first wave of artificial intelligence (AI), we expected new technology to improve access to and quality of education in developing countries. The new technology brought about positive changes but not miracles, as some argue. In fact, it increased education inequity in many parts of the world.  

History repeats itself. Today, AI is, again, expected to be a change-maker in solving the challenges posed by COVID-19. But it all depends on resources and expertise that countries, education institutions and families can afford.

Today, with the modality of online learning adopted by many countries, it is fair to ask if all students benefit in the same way. A World Bank study focusing on Europe and Central Asia shows that well-off families can afford computers and other technologies that low-income families cannot. The latter may not even have internet access at home or in their neighborhoods. The digital gap is thus widening education inequity.

This corroborates evidence from earlier studies that show schools in rural and remote areas remain marginalized regardless of technological progress and its application in the education sector. While urban students, in particular students from middle-class families, can have home access to cutting-edge technology, this may not be the case for students from low-income families everywhere.

Another important agent of change is school leaders, principals, headmistresses and headmasters, who oversee education in school administration daily. However, in the context of the pandemic, there are many discussions about the implications for teachers, students and parents but not much about the principals. 

Practically speaking, its the school leaders who manage "innovations" in the education sector. The big elephant has been in the room for a long time. Unless their role is given full play, innovation won't take effect even with the advanced technologies.

Moreover, the private sector could play an instrumental role in using new technology for educational purposes. In the early 1980s, the Velez Group piloted Piaget's constructivism-based classroom teaching and school administration in rural and urban marginal areas of Colombia, with free personal computers provided by IBM. It proved that the technology did not improve quality though it had a positive impact on non-cognitive achievement. The same thing has happened in other countries.

In the same vein, Papert and then Negroponte insisted that every student in the world could have access to the magic tool – the one-laptop-per-child computer to improve learning given the low cost of technology. The application of this approach has failed in several countries.

General policies may miss an important segment of the student population, mainly when we are supporting the delivery of education services in an emergency like the outbreak of COVID-19. Focus or priority should be given to those that are more vulnerable, who are often missed by new policies and technologies. This would help governments achieve more, better and more equitable results. 

At the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak in China, students in rural and remote areas had difficulties continuing their learning due to a shortage of infrastructure or facilities.

In mountainous areas, some teachers taught outdoors on the top of hills where they can access to better internet connectivity. To ensure students would not be disrupted, the Ministry of Education soon established an online platform that could accommodate 50 million students learning simultaneously. For students in rural and remote areas, the government coordinated classes via television for primary and secondary students. The public and private sectors joined forces to improve learning facilities in poverty-stricken counties, such as providing iPads and other technological resources.

Indeed, now we have more information and more effective approaches to using new technology than we did 40 years ago. This will facilitate the identification of the specific models to improve quality, but it won't take effect without an awareness of the differences within education systems, as well as a corresponding vision for targeted policies.  

Otherwise, it is likely that students in rural and marginalized urban communities students will not be unable to learn how to read after the primary education cycle, as happened 40 years ago. 

In particular, governments need to target programs to provide the most vulnerable children access to new technology, not only equipment but even connectivity for online education, as suggested by the World Bank study.

Paradoxically, COVID-19 is a wake-up call. It gives us the opportunity to improve education for those that might have otherwise been neglected.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)