Advancing Equity in Education: Progress Towards Inclusive and Equal Access for the Vulnerable in South Africa

Abstract

This study evaluates South Africa’s progress toward achieving SDG 4.5 by examining disparities in educational access and outcomes for vulnerable groups, including girls, children with disabilities, rural populations, and low-income households. The study recognises multidimensional inequalities and develops strategies that promote inclusive and equitable education. The quantitative approach was employed by constructing a composite Educational Equity Index (EEI) using seven indicators: gender parity in primary and lower secondary completion, location-based attainment among adults, gender parity in adult lower secondary education, disability parity in primary completion, gender parity among the poorest quintile, and wealth parity in youth literacy. These indicators were standardised and aggregated to develop the EEI. The study developed a multivariate regression model to identify the most influential parity factors affecting youth literacy outcomes. Data from UNESCO, the World Bank, and national education statistics were sourced. The findings revealed persistent inequities across gender, disability, geography, and economic status, with particularly pronounced disparities in adult participation, rural attainment, and youth literacy among poorer households. While parity in youth literacy and primary education completion has been largely achieved, inequities persist in secondary education completion and adult education. The findings further revealed that upper secondary completion had a strong positive impact on equity outcomes, whereas disparities in adult participation significantly hindered progress. This study conducted a comprehensive, data-driven examination of educational equity in South Africa. By presenting a novel index approach customised to SDG 4.5, it provided fresh insights into multidimensional inequalities and offered actionable evidence for targeted policy interventions. The study contributes to scholarship on inclusive education while highlighting practical pathways for South Africa to accelerate progress toward equity in line with global education commitments.

1. Introduction

Education has long been recognised as a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of socioeconomic transformation (Desjardins, 2015; Diamond et al., 2025; Zendeli, 2017). It is widely accepted that inclusive, equitable, and quality education is indispensable for eradicating poverty, reducing inequality, and empowering individuals to participate fully in civic and economic life. This vision is enshrined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4, which commits to ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all. Within this framework, SDG 4.5 aims to eliminate disparities in education by 2030, specifically focusing on vulnerable groups such as women and girls, persons with disabilities, rural populations, and children from poor households (Benavot, 2022).

Despite these commitments, it has remained challenging to realise equitable education, especially when focusing on developing economies where structural inequalities are deeply entrenched (Nugroho, 2024). In this regard, South Africa offers a compelling case. After the end of apartheid, South Africa has continued to grapple with broader educational disparities that mirror broader socioeconomic inequalities (Muyambi & Ahiaku, 2025). While notable progress has been made in expanding access to schooling, particularly at the primary and high school level, inequities in quality, outcomes, and opportunities remain stark across gender, geography, economic class, and disability status (Peer, 2024; Spaull, 2013; Walker et al., 2019). These inequities undermine the constitutional promise of equal opportunity and hinder South Africa’s ability to harness education as a tool for inclusive development.

The central problem this study seeks to address is the persistent multidimensional inequities in South Africa’s education system, particularly among vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. Previous studies have highlighted wide achievement gaps between learners from affluent households and low-income families and between urban and rural populations (Muyambi & Ahiaku, 2025; Owens, 2018; Reardon, 2018). Gender disparities remain subtle, reflecting the profound and persistent influence of apartheid, which is manifested in various forms such as unmet promises of reparation and amplified disparities. At the same time, learners with disabilities face systemic exclusion due to inadequate infrastructure, insufficiently trained teachers, and limited access to assistive technologies (Donohue & Bornman, 2014). These disparities are not merely anecdotal but structurally embedded in the education system, reflecting historical legacies and contemporary governance challenges.

The limitations of previous approaches to measuring and addressing educational equity further compound the problem. While various indicators, such as enrolment rates, literacy levels, and transition ratios, are widely used, they often fail to capture the multidimensional nature of inequity. Previous studies tend to examine equity through fragmented lenses, focusing on one or two dimensions such as gender parity or rural access, without providing a holistic, composite measure that integrates different layers of vulnerability. This fragmented approach constrains policymakers’ ability to design effective, targeted interventions. Moreover, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, there remains limited empirical work that systematically explores the parity factors influencing educational equity in South Africa within the SDG 4.5 framework. This study seeks to address these gaps by advancing conceptual and empirical contributions. Conceptually, it introduces the Educational Equity Index (EEI), a composite measure designed to capture the multidimensional aspects of educational inequality across vulnerable groups. Unlike traditional indicators, the EEI provides a holistic framework that integrates disparities across gender, disability, geography, and household income, offering a more nuanced understanding of equity gaps in South Africa’s education system.

Furthermore, the study contributes to the global discourse on inclusive education by situating South Africa’s experience within broader efforts to achieve SDG 4.5. While much of the literature has focused on global trends or regional generalisations, this research provides country-specific, data-driven insights that can inform national policy and international comparative analysis. In doing so, it bridges the gap between normative commitments to equity and the empirical realities of educational outcomes.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents a comprehensive literature review, drawing on theoretical frameworks and empirical studies on educational equity globally and in South Africa. It highlights the conceptual debates around inclusive education and the challenges of operationalising equity. Section 3 outlines the construction of the Educational Equity Index and the regression models employed to identify key parity factors. This is followed by the presentation and discussion of results, where the study’s findings on multidimensional inequities and their structural drivers are detailed. Finally, the paper concludes with policy implications, recommendations, and reflections on the broader significance of advancing equity in education as South Africa strives to meet the SDG 4.5 target.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Inclusive Education, Barriers to Access and Equity

Inclusive education is pivotal in promoting educational equity, particularly for individuals with disabilities (Shaeffer, 2019). Inclusive education allows children with disabilities to learn alongside their peers, fostering a sense of belonging and reducing discrimination (Dash, 2006; Jenkinson, 2000; Mumford & Chandler, 2009). This approach not only benefits students with disabilities but also enriches the educational environment for all learners by promoting diversity and understanding.

Several studies identify key barriers that hinder equitable access to education. For example, Berg (2016) discusses economic barriers, such as high tuition costs, social capital, and insufficient scholarships, disproportionately affecting low-income students. Structural inequalities, including inadequate infrastructure and geographic limitations, further exacerbate these challenges. Farkas (2003) and Mizrav (2023) highlight cultural and social obstacles, such as discrimination and lack of representation, which also impede access for ethnic minorities and individuals with disabilities (Espinoza-Bravo & Cabezas-Cabezas, 2024). Government policies play a crucial role in shaping access to education. Wanti et al. (2022) identify that effective financial support and social relations among peers and educators significantly influence equity in higher education. Policies that promote inclusive educational practices and provide financial assistance are essential for levelling the playing field for disadvantaged groups (Salmi & D’Addio, 2021).

Various strategies have been proposed to overcome the identified barriers. Implementing inclusive educational policies, offering targeted scholarship programs, and developing diversity-sensitive curricula are vital steps toward ensuring equitable access (Espinoza-Bravo & Cabezas-Cabezas, 2024). Community interventions and integrating educational technologies can also enhance access for marginalised groups, making education more accessible and relevant to their needs. While significant progress has been made in advancing equity in education, challenges remain. The literaturesuggests that despite implementing inclusive policies, disparities persist, particularly in under-resourced areas. Continuous efforts are needed to adapt strategies to local contexts and ensure that all individuals have access to quality education regardless of their background. This ongoing commitment to equity is essential for fostering a more inclusive society.

A brief reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) helps to position South Africa within global commitments to inclusive education. Including this perspective strengthens the international context of the discussion while maintaining balance, as the article extends beyond disability-specific inclusion.

2.2. Theoretical Review

This study is anchored on the Human Capital Theory, Social Justice Theory, and the Capability Approach, which collectively frame education as a driver of socioeconomic progress and a fundamental right that must be distributed equitably across all segments of society. The Human Capital theory was propounded by Becker in 1964. The theory averred that educational investment has the capacity to improve an individual’s employability, productivity, and overall economic growth. In the South African context, educational inequities undermine the optimal development of human capital, as systemic disparities prevent vulnerable groups such as girls, rural learners, children with disabilities, and low-income households from fully realising their potential (Chikoko & Mthembu, 2021; Peer, 2024). Persistent inequalities in access and attainment limit the country’s ability to foster inclusive development, reproducing poverty and marginalisation cycles. Human Capital Theory, therefore, provides a basis for understanding education as a private good and a public investment whose benefits are maximised only when equity is achieved.

While Human Capital Theory emphasises the instrumental role of education, Social Justice Theory, propounded by Rawls in 1971, highlights the normative obligation to ensure fairness in the distribution of opportunities. Rawls’ principle of fair equality of opportunity requires that structural barriers, such as geographic disadvantage, gender bias, or inadequate infrastructure for learners with disabilities, be dismantled to guarantee that all learners, regardless of their background, can achieve equitable outcomes. In South Africa, where historical legacies of apartheid continue to shape educational access, a social justice perspective underscores that equity is not merely about equal treatment but about implementing compensatory measures to address systemic disadvantages. This aligns closely with SDG 4.5, which calls for eliminating disparities across multiple dimensions of vulnerability.

Sen’s Capability Approach complements these perspectives, which shift the focus from inputs and outcomes to the real freedoms individuals possess to achieve their desired educational goals. It recognises that learners face varying conversion factors, including poverty, disability, or rural isolation, that shape their ability to benefit from available educational resources. Thus, two learners with the same schooling opportunity may experience vastly different outcomes if these contextual factors are overlooked. By integrating the Capability Approach, this study recognises that equity in education must be measured not only by access and attainment but also by the substantive opportunities learners have to succeed. Together, these theories provide a comprehensive lens through which the study constructs the EEI. The EEI operationalises equity by capturing multidimensional disparities across gender, disability, geography, and wealth, reflecting both the distribution of resources and the realisation of opportunities.

2.3. Empirical Review

The literature on advancing equity education in South Africa reveals a complex interplay of policy developments, historical injustice, and ongoing challenges in implementing inclusive education. For instance, the study of Bhengu et al. (2006) provided the foundational understanding of the educational landscape before 1994, highlighting how apartheid policies entrenched racial segregation and unequal access to quality education. Mphunngoa (2008) highlighted the perceptions of secondary school educators towards inclusive education in Maokeng, emphasising the critical barriers posed by administrative demands and lack of parental involvement, often rooted in poverty and limited education. This study recommends the necessity for ongoing professional development and the importance of collaboration among educators, parents, and external organisations to foster inclusive practices.

Mahlo (2013) examined the divide between theory and practice in implementing inclusive education policies. The study of Mahlo (2013) critically examines how environmental factors perpetuate social and educational injustices, emphasising the necessity of incorporating intersectionality into inclusive education frameworks. Mahlo (2013) averred that by utilising Freire’s critical pedagogy and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, his study highlights the multifaceted nature of inclusive education, asserting that it is not merely a policy but a transformative approach essential for fostering a democratic society. Kola and Pretorius (2014) analysed the progress towards employment equity since 1994. Despite initiatives to redress historical imbalances, Kola and Pretorius (2014) noted a persistent underrepresentation of black individuals and women in senior management roles. Their assessment of the Employment Equity Act of 1998 reveals that while some institutions have made strides towards equity and diversity, others continue to lag, indicating a need for more robust policy implementation and alignment with social justice goals.

Building on previous studies, Makoelle (2014) examined the perceptions of black African learners in previously advantaged white schools, revealing that despite the policy shifts initiated by the adoption of White Paper 6, exclusionary attitudes rooted in racial biases persist. The study of Makoelle (2014) further noted the ongoing challenges in de-racialising the education system and promoting national unity, as learners navigate a landscape marked by historical inequities. The findings underscore the need for critical race theory and realism in understanding the dynamics of race and inclusion within the educational context. Gumede and Biyase (2016) explored the broader educational reforms and curriculum transformations that have occurred since the end of apartheid. Their analysis highlights the legislative advancements aimed at redressing past injustices and acknowledges the persistent challenges related to education quality and access. Gumede and Biyase (2016) noted that movements such as Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall exemplify the ongoing struggles against inequality, emphasising that while policies have evolved, the reality of educational equity remains fraught with obstacles.

The study of Staden (2016) addresses the literacy development opportunities for preschoolers, revealing a literacy crisis that undermines the constitutional guarantees of education and human rights. Her research highlights the disparities in literacy stimulation across urban and rural settings, identifying systemic inequalities that adversely affect at-risk children. This study calls for enhanced focus on early childhood education as a critical component in promoting equity. Hausiku (2017) provided a comparative perspective by evaluating the implementation processes of inclusive education in Namibia. The study reflects on the historical segregation of learners with disabilities and the shift towards inclusive practices that promote social justice and respect for diversity. By examining the effectiveness of these policies, Hausiku contributes to the broader understanding of inclusive education as a universal right, reinforcing the notion that access to education must be equitable for all individuals, regardless of their background.

Genovesi et al. (2022) systematically review stakeholder experiences regarding inclusive education for children with developmental disabilities in sub-Saharan Africa. Their findings indicate that while policies exist, the actual implementation of inclusive education remains inconsistent, particularly for children with severe developmental disabilities. The review emphasises the need to understand community attitudes and stakeholder beliefs in order to develop effective strategies for inclusion.

While the literature review effectively addresses the broad, global determinants of educational equity, it lacks engagement with research conducted specifically in South Africa. To that end, recent studies demonstrate how structural inequalities rooted in the country’s apartheid legacy persist. For example, Gruijters et al. (2024) document how elite reproduction continues in South African schools through opportunity hoarding, resulting in persistent school segregation by race and class. Soudien (2024) further argues that despite three decades of reform, socioeconomic inequalities have deepened, particularly along spatial and linguistic lines. In terms of education and poverty, Ngepah et al. (2023) quantitatively show a strong negative relationship between educational attainment and vulnerability to poverty in South African households.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study adopts a quantitative research design rooted in the construction of a composite EEI, to capture disparities in educational access and outcomes among vulnerable groups in South Africa. The EEI is designed in line with Sustainable Development Goal 4.5, which emphasises eliminating disparities in education across gender, disability, geography, and socioeconomic status. Unlike single-indicator measures that provide a fragmented view of inequality, the EEI integrates multiple dimensions into one holistic metric, allowing for nuanced assessments and targeted policy insights.

In addition to index construction, the study employs multivariate regression modelling to explore the extent to which specific parity dimensions influence youth literacy outcomes. The methodological framework is divided into four steps, namely (1) Selection of indicators relevant to educational equity (2) Standardisation of indicators to ensure comparability, (3) Aggregation of indicators into the EEI using a weighted approach and (4) Estimation of regression models to analyse determinants of literacy outcomes.

3.2. Data Sources and Variable Description

Secondary data were sourced for this study and drawn from multiple reputable international and national sources to ensure robustness. Firstly, data was drawn from UNESCO Institute for Statistics (sourced from UIS,) which provides gender parity indices, disability-related indicators, and completion rates. Secondly, the World Bank (sourced from World Development Indicators) provides wealth quintile measures and literacy rates. Lastly, Statistics South Africa (sourced from StatSA) provides disaggregated national statistics on educational attainment by gender, location, and socioeconomic status. This study’s time frame spans 14 years, from 2010 to 2023, chosen to capture post-apartheid education reforms and evaluate South Africa’s progress toward the 2030 SDG targets. The variables used in the study can be seen in

Table 1. Description of variables.

Variable	Type	Description
$EEI$	Dependent	It emphasises eliminating disparities in education across gender, disability, geography, and socioeconomic status. EEI integrates multiple dimensions into one holistic metric, allowing for nuanced assessments and targeted policy insights.
YLR15	Independent	Youth literacy rate, population 15–24 years, adjusted gender parity index (GPIA)
CRUSEC	Independent	Completion rate, upper secondary education, adjusted gender parity index (GPIA), (modelled data)
PARTAD	Independent	Participation rate of youth and adults in formal and non-formal education and training in the previous 12 months, 25–54 years old, adjusted gender parity index (GPIA)
$EATT\_LOSECRUR$	Independent	Educational attainment rate, completed lower secondary education or higher, population 25+ years, rural, adjusted gender parity index (GPIA)

Source: Author’s Synthesis (2025).

.

3.3. Indicators for Educational Equity

The variables constructed for constructing the EEI are seen in

Table 2. Educational Equity Index.

s/no	Identifier	Variable Description
1	$GPPCR$	Gender parity in primary completion rate
2	$GPLSCR$	Gender parity in lower secondary completion rate
3	$LAA$	Location-based attainment among adults (urban–rural gap)
4	$GPALE$	Gender parity in adult lower secondary education
5	$DPPC$	Disability parity in primary completion
6	$GPPQ$	Gender parity among the poorest quintile
7	$WPYL$	Wealth parity in youth literacy

Source: Author’s Synthesis (2025).

, with each variable representing a dimension of disparity.

3.4. Standardisation of Indicators

Standardisation is necessary to combine these indicators into a single index because the raw data are expressed in different units and scales. The z-score method is used, as it retains variability while ensuring comparability:

$$Z_{it}={\displaystyle \frac{X_{it}-{\mu }_i}{{\sigma }_i}}$$

(1)

where

$Z_{it}$ = standardised value of indicator $i$ at time $t$;

$X_{it}$ = raw value of indicator $i$ at time $t$;

${\mu }_i$ = mean of indicator $i$;

${\sigma }_i$ = standard deviation of indicator $i$.

Because parity indicators such as gender, disability, and wealth parity use 1 as the ideal benchmark representing full equity, the study applies a distance-to-target adjustment to show how far each value deviates from perfect parity. This step ensures that disparities above or below 1 are captured consistently across all indicators. The adjustment is applied after standardisation and before aggregation into the Educational Equity Index, allowing all indicators to contribute comparably to the final composite measure:

$${Adj}_{it}=1-\left[1-X_{it}\right]$$

(2)

3.5. Construction of the Educational Equity Index

After standardisation, the EEI is computed as a weighted arithmetic mean of the seven dimensions. Equal weights are assigned initially, as each dimension is considered equally important for achieving SDG 4.5. The index is expressed as:

$${EEI}_t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ n}}\sum _{i=1}^n{Z}_{it}$$

(3)

where

${EEI}_t$ = Educational Equity Index in year $t$;

$Z_{it}$ = standardised and adjusted score of indicator $i$;

$n$ = number of indicators.

A higher EEI value denotes greater progress toward equity, while lower values indicate persistent disparities.

3.6. Regression Model Specification

The model is specified as follows:

$${EEI}_t= \alpha +{\beta }_1{YLR15}_t+{\beta }_2{CRUSEC}_t+{\beta }_3{PARTAD}_t+{\beta }_4{EATT}_t+{ϵ}_t$$

where

${YLR15}_t$ = youth literacy rate at time $t$;

$\alpha$ = intercept;

${\beta }_1$ = regression coefficients measuring the effect of each indicator;

${ϵ}_t$ = error term.

Based on the model, the following null hypotheses will be tested:

H₁. 

There is no significant relationship between gender parity in completion rates and youth literacy outcomes.

H₂. 

Location-based disparities have no significant effect on youth literacy outcomes.

H₃. 

Disability parity has no significant association with youth literacy outcomes.

H₄. 

Wealth parity has no significant impact on youth literacy outcomes.

3.7. Estimation Technique

The study applies the Ordinary Least Squares for baseline regression estimation, considering its robustness in capturing linear relationships (Reddy & Henze, 2023). To control for the incidence of multicollinearity amongst our variables, the study conducted the correlation matrix and variance inflation factor (VIF) tests to further authenticate the suitability of the variables in the regression model.

4. Data Analysis and Results Interpretation

This section comprises the data analysis and interpretation of results. As seen in

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
CRUSEC	1.142	0.025	1.1	1.17
YLR15	1.002	0.007	1	1.02
PARTAD	1.243	0.072	1.12	1.38
EATT	0.931	0.048	0.78	0.98
EEI	3.19	0.341	2.564	3.71

Source: Stata Output (2025).

, the descriptive statistics for the variables used in constructing and analysing educational equity in South Africa. The completion rate for upper secondary education (CRUSEC) records a mean of 1.142 with a small standard deviation of 0.025. This suggests that gender parity in upper secondary completion has been achieved and slightly exceeded unity, indicating marginal advantages for females in some years. The minimum and maximum values of 1.10 and 1.17 confirm that disparities remain narrow, though equity has not been perfectly constant across the period. The youth literacy rate for the population aged 15 to 24 (YLR15) shows a mean of 1.002 with a minimal variation (0.007). This implies near-perfect gender parity in literacy among youths, with values consistently close to one. The narrow range, from 1.00 to 1.02, demonstrates that literacy achievements are almost equal between young men and women, signalling progress towards inclusive education under SDG 4.5.

For participation in adult education and training (PARTAD), the mean of 1.243 and standard deviation of 0.072 reflect a higher level of disparity, ranging from 1.12 to 1.38. These results suggest significant gender imbalances, with men or women enjoying higher participation opportunities in adult learning. This outcome highlights structural barriers in lifelong learning access, particularly for vulnerable groups. The variable measuring educational attainment at the lower secondary level or higher (EATT) yields a mean of 0.931, with values ranging between 0.78 and 0.98. This is the only variable with a mean below parity (1), implying that women in rural or disadvantaged settings continue to lag in educational attainment. The moderate dispersion (0.048), points to persistent inequities in completing secondary education, which may limit opportunities for higher-level participation and employment. Finally, the composite Educational Equity Index averages 3.19 with a standard deviation of 0.341, spanning values between 2.564 and 3.71. This indicates moderate progress toward educational equity, although variations across years reflect uneven achievements in gender, location, wealth, and disability parity. The EEI underscores that while literacy parity has been achieved, more profound disparities remain in adult participation and rural attainment. The descriptive results justify the need for a multidimensional approach, as equity is uneven across indicators, near perfect in youth literacy, moderate in completion, but weaker in adult education and rural attainment.

Table 4. Matrix of correlations.

Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
(1) CRUSEC	1.000
(2) YLR15	−0.100	1.000
(3) PARTAD	0.225	0.075	1.000
(4) EATT	−0.333	0.035	−0.232	1.000
(5) EEI	0.601	−0.335	−0.607	−0.009	1.000

Source: Stata Output (2025).

presents the correlation matrix which shows the relationships among the variables used in the study. The results indicate that the completion rate of upper secondary education has a strong positive correlation with the Educational Equity Index at 0.601, suggesting that improvements in gender parity at the upper secondary level significantly enhance overall educational equity. CRUSEC also shows a mild positive correlation with participation in adult education at 0.225. However, its relationship with youth literacy at −0.100 is negative but weak, implying that completion gains at the secondary level do not directly translate into higher youth literacy outcomes.

Youth literacy exhibits weak correlations with all other variables, notably a negative relationship with EEI at −0.335. It indicates that while literacy parity is nearly achieved, it does not strongly drive multidimensional equity when considered alongside other indicators. Participation in adult education shows a moderate negative correlation with EEI at −0.607, suggesting that disparities in adult education and training access significantly constrain broader equity progress. Similarly, educational attainment is negatively correlated with CRUSEC and PARTAD at −0.333 and −0.232, respectively, reflecting challenges in ensuring equitable completion at higher levels.

Table 5. Variance inflation factor.

Variables	VIF	1/VIF
CRUSEC	1.169	0.856
EATT	1.16	0.862
PARTAD	1.096	0.912
YLR15	1.021	0.98
Mean VIF	1.111

Source: Stata Output (2025).

reports the Variance Inflation Factor test for multicollinearity among the independent variables. All variables have VIF values close to 1, ranging between 1.021 and 1.169, with a mean VIF of 1.111. These values are well below the conventional thresholds of 5 or 10, indicating no evidence of multicollinearity (Osuma, 2025). The tolerance values (1/VIF) are also high, exceeding 0.85, which confirms the absence of redundancy among predictors. This suggests that the independent variables contribute uniquely to the model, ensuring stable and reliable regression estimates.

Table 6. OLS Linear regression.

EEI	Coef.	St.Err.	t-Value	p-Value	[95% Conf]	[Interval]	Sig
YLR15	−5.899	3.278	−1.80	0.323	−47.555	35.757
CRUSEC	11.214	1.754	6.39	0.099	−11.074	33.501	*
PARTAD	−5.382	0.848	−6.35	0.1	−16.158	5.394	*
EATT_LOSECRUR	0.284	0.409	0.69	0.614	−4.911	5.478
Constant	2.73	4.09	0.67	0.625	−49.232	54.693
Mean dependent var		3.250	SD dependent var		0.236
R-squared		0.987	Number of obs		6
F-test		19.560	Prob > F		0.168
Akaike crit. (AIC)		−17.637	Bayesian crit. (BIC)		−18.678

* p < 0.1.

presents the results of the OLS regression examining the determinants of the Educational Equity Index using youth literacy (YLR15), completion of upper secondary education (CRUSEC), participation in adult education (PARTAD), and rural educational attainment (EATT) as explanatory variables. The model explains a substantial portion of the variance in EEI, with an R-squared of 0.987, suggesting that the included predictors account for nearly 99% of changes in the index. This indicates a strong model fit, although the small number of observations (n = 6) limits the reliability of inference.

Among the predictors, CRUSEC has a positive and statistically significant relationship with EEI (Coef. = 11.214, p < 0.10). This implies that improvements in gender parity in upper secondary completion substantially raise overall educational equity, aligning with the idea that secondary completion is a key driver of inclusive educational opportunities in South Africa. Similarly, PARTAD shows a significant negative effect (Coef. = −5.382, p < 0.10), indicating that inequities in adult participation in education and training constrain equity progress. This highlights the persistent barriers adults face in accessing lifelong learning, which diminishes the inclusiveness of the education system.

On the other hand, YLR15 carries a negative but statistically insignificant coefficient (Coef. = −5.899, p = 0.323). This suggests that while youth literacy rates are close to parity, they do not significantly influence multidimensional equity when considering other factors. Likewise, EATT_LOSECRUR is positive but insignificant (Coef. = 0.284, p = 0.614), showing that improvements in rural attainment do not independently drive equity within the sample, possibly due to structural challenges and data limitations. The model’s F-statistic at 19.560 is notable but not statistically significant (Prob > F = 0.168), reflecting the constraints of a minimal sample size. Nonetheless, the signs and relative magnitudes of the coefficients are meaningful. They suggest that upper secondary completion enhances educational equity, while adult participation gaps reduce it, underscoring the importance of strengthening school completion and lifelong learning opportunities to achieve SDG 4.5.

The Breusch–Pagan/Cook–Weisberg test as seen in

Table 7. Breusch–Pagan/Cook–Weisberg Test for Heteroskedasticity in the OLS Regression Model.

Test	Statistic	p-Value	Assumption	Null Hypothesis	Decision (5% Level)
Breusch–Pagan/Cook–Weisberg Test	χ2(1) = 0.64	0.4233	Normal error terms, fitted values of EEI	H0: Constant variance (no heteroskedasticity)	Fail to reject H0 → homoskedasticity confirmed

Source: Stata Output (2025).

examines whether the residuals of the regression model exhibit heteroskedasticity. The results (χ² = 0.64, p = 0.4233) indicate that the null hypothesis of constant variance cannot be rejected at the 5% significance level. This suggests that the error terms are homoskedastic, implying that the variance of the residuals is stable across observations. Consequently, the OLS estimates are efficient and unbiased, and there is no need to apply heteroskedasticity-robust corrections. These findings support the reliability of the regression model in explaining variations in the Educational Equity Index.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to examine educational equity in South Africa by constructing a multidimensional Educational Equity Index and investigating its relationship with key indicators such as youth literacy, completion of upper secondary education, participation in adult education, and rural attainment. The analysis covered the period from 2010 to 2023 and employed descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and OLS regression to provide empirical insights into the drivers of educational parity. The findings from the descriptive statistics reveal that progress has been made in achieving gender parity in youth literacy and secondary completion, with both indicators recording mean values close to or slightly above parity. However, disparities persist in adult education participation and rural attainment, lagging behind urban and male-dominated outcomes. The EEI average of 3.19 demonstrates moderate achievements, suggesting that while progress has been recorded, educational equity remains uneven across different dimensions.

The correlation analysis highlighted strong associations between upper secondary completion and EEI, confirming that gender parity in completion is central to strengthening equity outcomes. In contrast, adult participation in education demonstrated a significant negative relationship with EEI, pointing to structural barriers that restrict equitable access to lifelong learning opportunities. These results suggest that while youth-focused interventions are succeeding, adult education remains a critical weakness in advancing equity. Regression results reinforced these patterns. CRUSEC emerged as the strongest positive predictor of EEI, confirming the importance of completion at the upper secondary level in promoting equity. Conversely, PARTAD displayed a significant negative effect, highlighting the persistent inequality in adult learning opportunities. Interestingly, youth literacy and rural attainment showed insignificant effects, underscoring the need to broaden the equity framework beyond mere parity in literacy rates to encompass structural issues in access, participation, and attainment. The diagnostic checks confirmed that the regression model was reliable, with no evidence of multicollinearity or heteroskedasticity. This strengthens confidence in the validity of the results, even though the relatively small sample size calls for cautious interpretation. The results highlight a paradox: South Africa has achieved near-parity in youth literacy but continues to struggle with broader, multidimensional aspects of equity, particularly in adult participation and rural educational attainment.

5.1. Policy Recommendations

The findings of this study highlight several critical policy directions for advancing educational equity in South Africa. First, the strong positive influence of upper secondary completion on the Educational Equity Index underscores the need to consolidate gains in secondary schooling. Policies should prioritise removing practical barriers that disproportionately affect learners from low-income and rural households, including transportation challenges, long travel distances, and limited access to safe and affordable schooling routes. Expanding school transport subsidies, establishing community-based learning centres, and improving rural school infrastructure would reduce these access-related inequities.

Second, the persistent disparities in adult participation in education call for targeted interventions that address grassroots obstacles, such as limited access to learning resources, inflexible training schedules, and competing household responsibilities, which particularly affect women and rural adults. Implementing community learning hubs, offering flexible or mobile training programmes, and strengthening partnerships with local organisations can enhance access to lifelong learning opportunities.

Third, while youth literacy has achieved near parity, family and community awareness remain vital for sustaining educational progress. Policies that promote parental engagement, awareness of educational rights, and understanding of the benefits of equitable schooling, especially in low-socioeconomic contexts, can reinforce supportive home environments that facilitate learning. Community-oriented awareness campaigns, parent workshops, and school–community partnerships can strengthen this dimension.

Furthermore, rural–urban disparities in attainment necessitate renewed investment in rural schools, teacher retention incentives, and enhanced access to essential learning materials. Addressing resource gaps such as access to textbooks, digital tools, and inclusive learning materials would directly support learners who are currently disadvantaged by socio-economic constraints. Finally, institutionalising the Educational Equity Index as a multidimensional monitoring tool would enable policymakers to track disparities more effectively across gender, wealth, location, and disability. This would support timely and targeted policy responses aligned with South Africa’s commitment to achieving SDG 4.5.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

Although this study provides valuable insights into South Africa’s progress toward educational equity under SDG 4.5, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the analysis relies entirely on secondary data from international and national databases. While these sources are reputable, data availability constraints, particularly for disability-related and adult education indicators, may limit the granularity and completeness of specific measures. Second, although the Educational Equity Index captures multiple dimensions of disparity, the index does not encompass qualitative factors such as school-level experiences, cultural barriers, and community dynamics, which also influence educational outcomes. Furthermore, the focus on a single country restricts the comparative relevance of the findings.

Future research should extend this work by employing longitudinal and mixed-methods approaches to deepen understanding of the structural drivers of educational inequity. Comparative analyses across countries with similar socioeconomic contexts would also help benchmark South Africa’s progress within the broader SDG 4.5 landscape. In addition, future studies could expand the Educational Equity Index by incorporating qualitative indicators, such as school climate, teacher preparedness for inclusive education, and community engagement, to enrich the multidimensional assessment of equity. Incorporating geospatial analysis and household-level microdata would further illuminate disparities at sub-national levels. As SDG-focused research continues to evolve, there is substantial scope for developing more context-sensitive, dynamic models that track the interaction between educational policies, social conditions, and equity outcomes over time.