Ms. Ballard announces, “Today is the day we have all been looking forward to; we are dissecting frogs!” Cheers and moans are heard throughout the classroom. The boys, eager to obtain the lifeless frogs, immediately jump out of their seats while the girls turn their heads, moan, and comment, “Gross.” Ms. Ballard reviews the lab procedures reminding the students of the following: “One person in your group will gather all of the supplies and dissect the frog; the other person will be the time-keeper and note-taker.” Typically, in a coed group, such as in Ms. Ballard’s lab room – the boy would be the one dissecting the frog while the girl would be watching the time and taking notes. (Hughes, 2006, p. 5-6) The situation from the excerpt above perfectly illustrates one of the several noticeable disadvantages in coeducational schools, where boys mostly dominate, by controlling the experiment, and girls struggle to be actively engaged in the educational process. The middle and high school years are regarded to be the hardest, both cognitively and mentally, and the most important parts of education of every student, therefore it is crucial to help pupils as much as possible. In general, the chance of studying in co-educational schools for an individual is higher than studying in single-sex schools. But does it really mean anything? Is it more beneficent to study in coeducational school than in single-sex school? Even though many believe that co-education has more positive effects on students than in single-sex education, I think that same-sex education is more advantageous due to its positive effect on behavior, academic achievement, and social growth. Opponents of single-sex education claim that separating students by gender is the same as separating them by race (Hughes, 2006). Moreover, they contend that permitting single-sex education is a legitimate step rearward and that the same-sex education is a violation of the law. “In the current context, attendance in single-sex schools is voluntary, and coeducational options remain, if not predominant” (Hughes, 2006). It is a choice of an individual to study in a single-sex school or in a coeducational school, hence choice is an option here. Indeed, discrimination mostly occurs in co-educational schools rather than in same-sex schools. For instance, many women reported that their level of participation in coeducational classrooms is relatively low (Josiah, Claudius, 1996). Advocates of co-education imply that there is no academic performance boost and behavior refinement in all-girl or all-boy classes. However, multiple types of research show the opposite. Single-sex authorities claim that test scores rise, participation level increases and behavior is improved (Hughes, 2006). Therefore, single-sex schools offer better circumstances for students’ success opportunities by increasing attendance and test results compared to co-educational schools. According to Streitmatter’s experiment (1998), girls improved their exam results in physics in a same-sex physics class by a substantial percentage. As indicated in Streitmatter’s statistics (1998), 87.5% of girls in the single-sex class received an “A”, whereas only 14.3% of girls received an “A” in the co-educational class. The situation is almost identical, for girls, in mathematics and other natural science disciplines. Regarding boys’ achievement in single-sex schools, they tend to obtain more passes in English and other languages (Smyth, 2010). So, both boys and girls in single-sex education environment benefit in specific areas of academics. Also, while boys and girls in coeducational schools distract each other and diminish common interest and determination towards academics, single-sex schools obviously drop the problem of distraction and thus gives students perfect environment to utterly focus on their studies. Opponents of single-sex education also assert that single-sex schools negatively impact boys’ and girls’ social growth in society, and that coeducational schools or coeducational classes influence developing interaction skills among students. However, the presumption is wrong; opportunities to communicate are accessible through real-life scenarios between boys and girls in “family, neighborhood, church, or volunteer organizations, etc.” (Hughes, 2006). Furthermore, as an opposing view to the supporters of coeducation, from social perspective, Caplice (as cited in Hughes, 2006) claims,These students are not taught, nor could they possibly believe, that they will only encounter members of their own sex throughout life. They merely seek to become well-equipped, in whatever environments are best suited for their intellectual, social, and physical development, to face the world and all it offers. In addition, attending a single-sex school does not erase all other-sex contacts. (p. 8)Moreover, increasing academic performance and intellectual progression of boys and girls through single-sex schools’ education system equip them utterly to cooperate effectively. Despite the widely held point of view that co-education is more advantageous, single-sex education has major advantages that can significantly impact both boys and girls. The situation discussed in the beginning of the article is common in coeducational schools. Single-sex class or school will probably eliminate the inequality problem and provide equal opportunity for the majority of students. It is evident that girls tend to score higher in math, physics and chemistry and boys are likely to obtain higher scores in literature and language classes in single-sex schools. The manifest function of the schools is education; therefore, it is pivotal that students do not get distracted by the opposite sex in schools. Therefore, in my opinion, single-sex education should be accounted as positively as co-education, in addition, it is more advantageous for students’ future opportunities and academic achievement.