Globally, it is estimated that about 15% of the world's population lives with disabilities (Berlinski et al., 2021). People with disabilities consistently show lower educational attainment and poorer employment outcomes across the world. According to the United Nations Disability and Development Report (United Nations, 2024), employment rates for persons with disabilities were reported at around 27%, compared to 56% for those without a disability—a gap that has persisted over time.

While the importance of inclusive education and employment policies is widely acknowledged, gaps persist between policy aspirations, educational practices, and lived experiences. Barriers such as inaccessible learning environments, limited accommodations, stigma, fragmented services, and weak policy implementation continue to limit opportunities for many individuals with disabilities (Oña et al., 2024).

This Research Topic, Education to Employment: Toward a Better Inclusion, responds to this challenge by examining inclusive education and transition support as lifelong, integrated and systemic processes rather than isolated interventions. Drawing on cross-national studies from Greece, Kazakhstan, China, Japan, and North America, this Research Topic of studies spans education, employment, and broader adult life domains. Importantly, it sparks interdisciplinary conversations that are often siloed across professions. The shared aim is to synthesize empirical insights that illuminate common challenges, contextual differences, and pathways toward more inclusive education-to-employment systems.

This Research Topic is grounded in conceptual perspectives that embrace inclusive education and transition as lifelong, systemic, and contextualized processes. The focus moves beyond fragmented models of services and research, and emphasizes continuity across educational, vocational, and other adult life domains.

First, inclusive education is conceptualized not as a distinct placement decision, but as a systemic process determined by the interactions of policy, institutional structures, and professional practice. The evidence from Kazakhstan highlights that the special and regular education systems exist independently rather than in complementary ways (Stampoltzis et al.). This lack of internal coherence limits schools' capacity to meet the needs of diverse learners and undermines continuity across educational stages.

Second, several articles are informed by life course and transition frameworks, which emphasize timing, sequencing, and resource integration in shaping individuals' lived experiences. The school-to-work transition is not a one-time event, but a cumulative process influenced by family resources, geographic context, and structural constraints. The life course analysis of individuals with visual impairments in China illustrates how educational exclusion, delayed transitions, and occupational stereotyping accumulate over time, influencing employment outcomes and wellbeing (Chen). These findings highlight the importance of investigating education, employment, and social factors jointly in explaining transition processes and long-term occupational outcomes.

Finally, this Research Topic expands transition models in practice and research by explicitly recognizing life beyond employment as integral to inclusion. Psychosocial domains, such as leisure and daily life management, are fundamental to sustained employment and wellbeing outcomes (Maebara and Yamaguchi; Maebara et al.). By taking a holistic view, this Research Topic advances the conceptualization of transition that aligns educational systems with long-term employment outcomes, and quality of life across the lifespan.

Transitioning from education to employment for individuals with disabilities depends heavily on the knowledge, attitudes, and collaboration of professionals. Yet education and rehabilitation operate largely in parallel, creating critical gaps in support. This Research Topic examines three dimensions of professional practice—teachers' occupational readiness priorities, career counselors' competencies, and divergence between them—to illuminate where professional preparation and collaboration fall short.

For example, Japanese special education teachers showed an advanced grasp of job preparedness, focusing on essential work skills in school, but acknowledging the need for more focus on job flexibility and post-school support (Maebara and Yamaguchi). This emphasis reflects a realistic assessment of school capacity, yet reveals a critical role-sharing gap between educators and job specialists. In another article (Dille et al.), authors highlighted that teacher-led summer programs with explicit reading components produce meaningful gains for secondary students at-risk of reading difficulties. Greek career counselors recognized employment potential for individuals with autism spectrum disorder yet acknowledged critical professional preparation and service challenges (Stampoltzis et al.).

Teachers and practitioners diverged on multiple levels. On occupational readiness, teachers deferred post-graduation skills to rehabilitation services while practitioners expected stronger school-year foundations (Maebara and Yamaguchi). Importantly, they diverged on values: teachers viewed leisure as integral to work-life balance and employment continuation; practitioners focused primarily on employment stability (Maebara et al.). This misalignment—in both role expectations and outcome priorities—substantially limits transition effectiveness.

The six articles collectively highlight implications for future practice, policy development, and research for improving inclusion. To achieve sustainable outcomes, efforts must be coordinated through both top-down policy initiatives and bottom-up professional practices.

To promote inclusion across the lifespan and development stages, there is an urgent need for interdisciplinary collaboration among professionals in education and employment systems (Phillips et al., 2025). Importantly, effective inclusion must extend beyond education and employment to encompass physical and mental health, as well as recreational and leisure participation (Heister et al., 2023).

In addition to strengthening services, practitioners must engage in advocacy that supports policy development and implementation. Policy reform is critical to addressing fragmentation across healthcare, transportation, employment, and housing systems, thereby supporting sustainable inclusion (National Council on Disability, 2024; United Nations, 2025).

Ongoing research is essential to better understand challenges, identify service gaps, and improve support for individuals with disabilities. Examining developmental milestones can clarify how life domains interact across stages, underscoring the need for longitudinal, life-course approaches (West and Kamis, 2022). Research on best practices that address all aspects of the person's life must also be included, particularly how physical, attitudinal and social barriers that hinder outcomes (Knott, 2023). Persistent disparities affecting women with disabilities, rural populations, racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with low socioeconomic status further highlight the importance of an intersectional lens (National Institute on Minority Health Health Disparities, 2025). Finally, inclusive research must actively involve professionals, policymakers, families, and individuals with disabilities to ensure authentic and informed policy as well as practice development (Nguyen and Kane, 2024).