" (p. 71) The conflict becomes even more heated when severely or profoundly disabled students are brought into the equation. Pierangelo and Jacoby (1996) clearly state, "Inclusion is not dumping children with challenging needs into regular classes without proper supports and services necessary to be successful nor is it sacrificing the education of typical children so that children with challenging needs can be integrated." (p. 83) There seems to be a growing consensus that the best place for students with mild learning disabilities to severe physical disabilities is within the mainstream system so they are able to benefit from a more comprehensive education. Advocates of inclusion believe that all children with disabilities belong in a regular classroom, because they need the same exposure as other students (Pierangelo and Jacoby, 1996). According to the Curry School of Education approximately 80% of students with learning disabilities receive the majority of their instruction in the general classroom (Curry School of Education, 1999). There is statistical evidence that students with disabilities in inclusive classroom have shown improvement in standardized tests, acquired better social and communication skills, have shown increases interaction with their peers and are better prepared for experiences after graduation. Evidence also suggests that an inclusive setting can expand a student's personal interests and knowledge of the world, which is also an excellent preparation for adulthood (www.rushservices.com). As for the students without disabilities, there is also documentation of positive effects of inclusion. Research has shown that non-disabled students demonstrated a greater acceptance of individual differences as well as enhanced self-esteem. Lower achieving students also benefited from the practice and review provided to students with disabilities (Inclusive Education:Practical Implementation, 1998).