Towards an Inclusive VET Ecosystem

Abstract

Context: Several countries have endorsed the United Nations agencies' mandate on inclusive vocational education and training (VET) for learners with special educational needs (SEN). Despite these robust international commitments, empirical evidence supporting inclusive VET remains dispersed across disciplines, national contexts, and thematic areas, thereby limiting the synthesis of cohesive policy and practice. This systematic review examines the evidence on inclusive VET across four domains: (1) pedagogy, (2) institutional support, (3) school-to-work transition, and (4) digital tools and mental health. Approach: Following PRISMA guidelines, a search was conducted across five databases (ERIC, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus) and through manual searches of four principal VET journals from January 2008 to April 2026. Findings: The review included 38 peer-reviewed empirical studies from 18 countries across four analytical domains: pedagogy and life skills (n = 18), institutional support (n = 16), school-to-work transition (n = 21), and digital tools and mental health (n = 4, both with partial focus). Data across the studies were primarily from (1) learners with SEN, (2) parents of learners with SEN, (3) VET teachers/staff, and (4) SEN–VET specialists. Across the studies, four cross-national themes emerged: (1) a universal gap between policy and practice, in which inclusive VET is widely mandated but inadequately implemented; (2) the VET teacher serves as the de facto inclusion system, with institutional support fragile because it relies on individual teacher commitment rather than structural design; (3) a pre-VET bottleneck, in which the transition from school to VET is the strongest predictor of the long-term risk of not in employment, education, or training (NEET) for learners with SEN; and (4) a critical oversight in digital and mental health, with no primary-focus studies addressing artificial intelligence, assistive technology, or mental health specifically within VET for SEN students. VET systems vary across countries; however, some consistently yield better results. Conclusions: Achieving inclusive VET requires a systemic approach rather than relying solely on individual efforts. The evidence points to four priority actions: (1) addressing the universal policy and practice gap through accountability mechanisms; (2) easing the burden on VET teachers by strengthening institutional support structures; (3) mitigating the pre-VET bottleneck through early transition planning that engages employer and VET providers; and (4) closing the critical evidence gap in digital and mental health, by funding targeted research on assistive technology, AI tools, and well-being interventions in VET contexts.