Across superdiverse education systems, NEET (Not in Employment, Education, or Training) trajectories are often explained through visible socio-economic constraints—poverty, migration, family structure—while "quiet barriers" inside schooling remain under-measured. This paper argues that reading comprehension functions as an invisible gatekeeper to participation in secondary education, vocational pathways, and labor-market entry, particularly for neurodivergent learners (including autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia, and other learning differences) who are frequently underserved in inclusive education implementation.

We develop an inclusion-to-transition pathway model in which literacy access is not only a pedagogical issue but also a mechanism shaping opportunity structures. In superdiverse contexts, literacy barriers interact with disability status, language background, gendered expectations, and institutional capacity, producing non-linear risk accumulation. The result is that students can be formally "included" (i.e., enrolled in mainstream classrooms) yet practically excluded from curricular access, credential attainment, and transition supports—conditions that elevate NEET risk.

Reading comprehension is foundational to nearly all secondary-level learning: understanding textbooks, following instructions, accessing digital resources, and participating in assessments. For neurodivergent students, difficulties with decoding, vocabulary, inference-making, or executive function can create cascading disadvantages. When these difficulties are not identified early or addressed with evidence-based interventions, students fall progressively behind, experience repeated academic failure, and disengage from schooling. This disengagement is often misattributed to "lack of motivation" or "family problems" rather than recognized as a consequence of inadequate literacy support.

The problem is compounded in superdiverse settings where teachers face high classroom heterogeneity (students with varying language proficiencies, prior schooling experiences, and support needs) but receive limited training in differentiated instruction or evidence-based literacy interventions. Research from Turkey, Jordan, and similar middle-income contexts shows that inclusive education policies are often implemented without corresponding investments in teacher capacity, instructional materials, or progress monitoring systems (Kuyini & Desai, 2007; Savolainen et al., 2012). As a result, neurodivergent students—who could succeed with appropriate supports—are left to "sink or swim," and many sink.

This paper synthesizes evidence across three domains: (i) reading comprehension interventions suitable for inclusive classrooms (e.g., explicit instruction, graphic organizers, peer-assisted learning), (ii) progress monitoring and individualized supports (e.g., curriculum-based measurement, single-case design), and (iii) transition-focused instruction linking academic access to employability skills (e.g., functional literacy, self-advocacy, career exploration). We argue that addressing literacy barriers is not merely a matter of academic equity but a structural transformation lever: improving reading comprehension for neurodivergent students increases human capital, reduces dropout and NEET risk, and enhances labor-market participation.

Our conceptual contribution is twofold. First, we reframe literacy access as a system-level mechanism rather than an individual deficit. Poor reading outcomes reflect not only student characteristics but also teacher capacity, curriculum design, assessment practices, and institutional responsiveness. Second, we propose a feasible evaluation design for subsequent empirical work: using single-case experimental design (a strength of special education research) to trace mechanisms at the individual level, while integrating system-level indicators (e.g., school policies, transition provisions, NEET rates) to ensure relevance beyond individual cases. This design is particularly suited to middle-income and low-income contexts where large-scale randomized trials are often infeasible.

We conclude with implications for teacher education, inclusive curriculum design, and policy: if reading comprehension remains unaddressed as a foundational access mechanism, inclusion agendas risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative. By making literacy barriers visible and actionable, we can strengthen the link between inclusive education and economic participation.

This paper is positioned as a research-to-practice conceptual paper informed by evidence synthesis, with a clear roadmap for empirical follow-up. The methodology consists of three components: Component 1: Evidence Synthesis on Reading Comprehension Interventions We conducted a targeted review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews (2010–2025) on reading comprehension interventions for students with disabilities and neurodivergence in inclusive settings. Databases searched: ERIC, PsycINFO, and What Works Clearinghouse. We prioritized interventions with evidence of effectiveness in heterogeneous classrooms (not just pull-out or specialized settings) and feasibility in resource-constrained contexts. Key sources included: Berkeley et al. (2010) on comprehension strategy instruction, Wanzek et al. (2013) on intensive interventions, and Gersten et al. (2001) on teaching reading to students with learning disabilities. We extracted intervention components (e.g., explicit instruction, scaffolding, peer support), implementation requirements (e.g., training, materials), and reported effect sizes. Component 2: Single-Case Design as Mechanism-Tracing Tool We reviewed methodological literature on single-case experimental design (SCED) (Kratochwill et al., 2013; Horner et al., 2005) to establish its suitability for studying literacy interventions in superdiverse, resource-constrained settings. SCED offers high internal validity (clear causal inference at the individual level), flexibility (adaptable to diverse student needs), and feasibility (does not require large samples or extensive infrastructure). We outline a proposed SCED protocol for future empirical work: (i) baseline assessment of reading comprehension using curriculum-based measures, (ii) implementation of evidence-based intervention (e.g., graphic organizers, reciprocal teaching), (iii) repeated measurement to document progress, and (iv) qualitative data (teacher interviews, student self-reports) to contextualize findings. This protocol is designed to be replicable across different contexts (Turkey, Jordan, other middle-income countries). Component 3: System-Level Contextualization To ensure that individual-level findings inform system-level policy, we propose integrating SCED results with secondary data analysis: national education statistics (e.g., dropout rates, special education enrollment, literacy assessment results) and labor force surveys (e.g., NEET rates by disability status, educational attainment). We also propose policy document analysis to assess the alignment (or misalignment) between inclusive education policies and actual provision of literacy supports. This mixed-methods approach allows us to trace mechanisms from classroom practice to system outcomes without fabricating data or making unsupported claims.

This paper makes three contributions to inclusive education research and practice. First, we identify reading comprehension as a critical but under-recognized mechanism linking inclusive education to NEET risk. While much research focuses on access (enrollment, placement) or attitudes (teacher beliefs, peer acceptance), we argue that curricular access—the ability to engage with grade-level content—is the missing link. For neurodivergent students, inadequate literacy support creates a cascade of disadvantages: academic failure, disengagement, dropout, and labor-market exclusion. Second, we propose a methodologically rigorous yet feasible approach for studying this mechanism in middle-income and low-income contexts. Single-case experimental design offers a practical alternative to large-scale trials, providing clear causal evidence at the individual level while remaining adaptable to diverse settings. By integrating SCED with system-level data, we can trace how classroom-level interventions scale (or fail to scale) to population-level outcomes. Third, we reframe literacy access as a structural transformation lever. Improving reading comprehension for neurodivergent students is not merely a matter of individual remediation but a system-level investment in human capital. When students can access the curriculum, they are more likely to complete secondary education, pursue vocational training or higher education, and enter the labor market with competitive skills. Conversely, when literacy barriers remain unaddressed, inclusion becomes symbolic: students are physically present in classrooms but functionally excluded from learning opportunities. For policy, our findings suggest that inclusive education strategies must invest in: (i) teacher training in evidence-based literacy instruction, (ii) progress monitoring systems to identify struggling readers early, and (iii) transition supports that link academic skills to employability. For practice, we offer a concrete roadmap: evidence-based interventions that are feasible in heterogeneous classrooms, a measurement approach (SCED) that provides actionable feedback, and a system-level perspective that connects classroom practice to economic participation.

Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6), 423–436. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. Kuyini, A. B., & Desai, I. (2007). Principals' and teachers' attitudes and knowledge of inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching practices in Ghana. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(2), 104–113. Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O. P. (2012). Understanding teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 51–68. Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163–195.