Purpose The purpose of this commentary is to reflect on some of the themes presented in the associated article “Vocational training for livelihood and rehabilitation of persons with intellectual disabilities” and provide considerations for future close-to-practice research in the area of vocational training models and rehabilitation provisions. Design/methodology/approach This commentary considers the literature in relation to rehabilitation provisions centred around vocation, highlights the need for a person-centred focus and reiterates the potential of vocation as a route to social inclusion and wider social networks. Findings The focus on adapting supports and vocational training programmes to fit within the context of low-income areas and country-specific legislation should be afforded particular consideration, alongside ways to achieve high-quality research rigour, which still puts the person supported at the centre of any outcome measures. Originality/value This commentary is aimed in part at practitioners working in the field of learning disabilities and employment/vocation, who are keen to conduct close-to-practice research.

Research indicates that engagement acts as an important precursor for learning, yet sustaining the engagement of pupils with special educational needs can be a challenge for classroom staff. An Active Support staff training package, Interactive Training, has been demonstrated as an effective way of increasing engagement in adults accessing learning disability services. In theory the logic of Active Support Interactive Training could extend to a school environment, with the aim of achieving similar outcomes. The current study evaluated a special school‐adapted version of Active Support Interactive Training with the aim of increasing engagement in pupils during group‐based learning. Findings showed an increase in engagement in pupils for all three settings (classrooms) immediately after intervention, which continued to either increase or stabilise at three‐month follow‐up. Further research could test the engagement behaviour of staff pre‐ and post‐ training intervention and explore practice leadership within the school leadership team to address maintenance.