Belonging in Reduced-Size Classrooms: Student Outcomes Among Chinese Upper Secondary Students With Intellectual and Other Documented Disabilities

Background: International debates on inclusive education often position reduced-size or specialized classrooms as either supportive provision or potentially segregating placement. Student-perspective evidence remains limited, particularly for upper secondary students with intellectual and other documented disabilities. Methods: This sequential explanatory mixed-methods study examined associations between reduced-size classroom (RSC) placement and academic and socio-emotional outcomes among 153 upper secondary students with documented disabilities in Wuhan, China. Students were enrolled in RSCs of no more than eight students (n = 47) or mainstream classrooms with resource-room support (n = 106). Structural equation modelling estimated direct and indirect associations involving social integration, teacher support and academic self-efficacy, with prior special education experience treated as a key covariate. Semistructured interviews with nine RSC students explained and contextualized the quantitative patterns. Results: After adjustment, RSC placement remained statistically associated with social integration, teacher support and academic self-efficacy, although estimates were attenuated. Bootstrap estimates supported indirect associations with subjective well-being through social integration and teacher support, and with academic achievement through teacher support and academic self-efficacy. Interviews highlighted belonging, personalized instruction, teacher closeness, reduced anxiety and academic confidence, while showing that students valued support quality more than placement labels. Conclusions: Reduced-size placement was associated with more favourable student-reported outcomes when students perceived stronger relational security, individualized instruction and teacher support. Because placement was nonrandom and the quantitative data were cross-sectional, findings should be interpreted as associational rather than causal. The study shifts attention from a simple inclusion-versus-segregation binary toward placement quality and support processes that may be especially relevant for students with substantial support needs in upper secondary education.