This document summarizes a thesis presentation on the accountability of secondary school teachers in relation to sex, locality, experience, and effectiveness of teaching. The presentation includes: 1. An introduction outlining the main and sub-objectives of the research study, a definition of teacher accountability, and a review of relevant literature. 2. Details on the research design including the population, sample, and data collection method. 3. Plans for data analysis including classification of samples based on sex, locality, experience, and effectiveness. Statistical tests like the t-test will be used. 4. An outline of the presentation of findings organized by hypotheses comparing groups on accountability scores and dimensions of accountability.

1. THESIS PRESENTATION
BY RESEARCH SCHOLAR
Smt. Suman Dhaka
University of Jain Vishva Bharati, Ladnun
In the Faculty of Education

2. THESIS PRESENTATION
ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY
SCHOOL TEACHERS
IN RELATION TO
SEX , LOCALITY, EXPERIENCE AND
AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING.

3. INTRODUCTION
1. MAIN OBJECTIVES
2. Sub Objectives
3. Accountability of Secondary School Teachers
4. Review of Accountability of Secondary School Teachers
5. Latest review references
6. Design of Research
7. Master sheet of samples
8. Sex wise classification and Locality wise break up of the samples
9. Classification based on effectiveness of teaching and teaching experience of teachers
10. Selection of questions in the TSRQ.
11. The logical validity of TSRQ
12. Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for Students and Guardians
13. Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for School and Society
14. Basics of considerations for Effectiveness of teachers knowledge
15. Procedure CR-TEST adopted for statistical calculations for comparing the significance
difference between the two means.
16. Representation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data Hypotheses
17. Representation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data Sub Hypotheses
18. Summary of Research

4. ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL
TEACHERS IN RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY,
EXPERIENCE AND AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING.
MAIN OBJECTIVES
1. To find out the impact of sex on accountability
among secondary school teachers.
2. To find out the impact of locality on
accountability among secondary school
teachers.
3. To find out the impact of teaching effectiveness
on accountability in secondary school
teachers.
4. To find out the impact of teaching experience
on accountability of secondary school
teachers.

5. ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN
RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY, EXPERIENCE AND
AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING.
Sub Objectives
1. To find out the accountability of
secondary school teachers in relation to
students.
2. To find out the accountability of
secondary school teachers in relation to
guardians.
3. To find out the accountability of
secondary school teachers in relation to
school.
4. To find out the accountability of
secondary school teachers in relation to
society

6. ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN
RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY, EXPERIENCE AND
AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING.
1. The notion of teacher’s accountability is entirely
new and it gained momentum only after the
publication of new education policy 1986.
2. Teacher’s accountability is a complex and essential
aspect of our educational experience.
3. Teachers are accountable on many levels -- to
students, parents, school and the community.
4. teacher accountability refers to the idea that the
teacher, not the student is ultimately responsible
for what and how much student learns.
5. Accountability is a state of being responsible or
answerable before god, society, and other men
and even to self.

7. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL
TEACHERS IN RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY, EXPERIENCE AND
AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING.
1. The term 'review' means to organize the knowledge of the specific
area of research, to evolve and edifice of knowledge, so that his
study would be an addition to this field.
2. All teaching methods are effective in certain situations and not so
effective in others situation.
3. Teacher’s accountability to pupils parents, community and their
own profession.
4. Impact of High-Stakes Accountability Policies on Native American
Learners. National Commission on Excellence in Education warned
that the nation itself is at risk due to mediocre and unequal
education, the gap between children with and without access to
high-quality education is growing.
5. Impartiality by the teacher leads to spirit of equality.
6. A primary goal of measuring high school teacher effectiveness is to
improve the knowledge and skills of teachers so that they improve
student achievement.

8. REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE
• 1 Studies related to teaching
• 2 Studies related to teacher's accountability
• 3 Studies related to effectiveness of
teaching
• 4 Co-relational Studies
• 5 Tools construction studies
• 6 Encyclopedia/ Journals/ Reports/
Researches/ Policies/ Periodicals/ References:

9. DESIGN OF RESEARCH ACCOUNTABILITY OF SECONDARY
SCHOOL TEACHERS IN RELATION TO SEX , LOCALITY,
EXPERIENCE AND AFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING.
1. Ex-post Facto method adopted to collect data relevant to
secondary school teachers.
2. Theoretically a population reflexes set of units or elements or
scores that are focus of the study.
3. The population for the purpose of this study was defined as the
entire teacher teaching in recognized secondary schools of
Jodhpur and Barmer districts.
4. A part or small portion selected from the population is called the
sample and the process of such selection is called sampling.
5. It is well clear that teachers belong to different locality are of both
sexes having high and low experiences, working in Govt. and
private recognized institutions also belonged to rural and urban
areas, number of male and female having high and low teaching
experiences selected in the samples.

10. Master sheet of 350 samples
Sex Locality Experience Effectiveness
Male Female Urban Rural High Low Effective Ineffective
273 77 194 156 75 275 141 209
Total 350 Total 350 Total 350 Total 350

11. Sex wise classification of the sample and Locality wise
break up of the sample
Total No. ofNo. of
Total
Schools
Schools Male Female Total
Male Female Total
Rural Rural
UrbanUrban
13 18 273 77 350
13 18 273 77 350
Total No. of
Rural Sample Urban Sample
school
Total
Rural Urban Male Female Male Female
13 18 130 26 143 51 350

12. Classification based on effectiveness of teaching
and teaching experience of teachers
Total No. of
Effective Teachers Ineffective Teachers Total
Schools Male Female Total
Male
Rural Female
Urban Male Female
13 18 273 77 350
111 27 162 50 350
High Experience Law Experience
Teachers Teachers
Total
Urban Rural Urban Rural
45 30 149 126 350

13. Selection of ultimately 40 questions in the TSRQ. The four
dimensions of TSRQ has 10-10 questions each as follows.
Sense of account- Sense of account- Sense of account- Sense of account-
ability for students ability for ability for school ability for society
(A) guardians (B) (C) (D)
2 4 1 3
6 8 5 7
10 12 9 11
14 16 13 15
18 20 17 19
22 24 21 23
26 28 25 27
30 32 29 31
34 36 33 35
38 40 37 39

14. Validity of TSRQ:The logical validity of TSRQ
is self proved because each question is
correlated on significant level from the total.
Dimension A 0.52
Dimension B 0.45
Dimension C 0.50
Dimension D 0.56

15. Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for Student
2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38
High V L l c v c c c l l
(P)
Avera L V
Scoring of TSRQ: l
v v l v l c c
ge The sum of all the dimension will be
Zero C Cthe ctotal accountability.
l c l v v v v
(x)
Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for Guardians
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
High C v c c v l v l v l
(P)
Avera V l v v l v l c l v
ge
Zero L c l c c c v v c c
(x)

16. Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for School
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37
High C c c l l v l l v l
(P)
Avera L l Scoring of c
l v c TSRQ: c
c l c
ge
Zero
The sumv of all the dimension will bev
V v c v l v v c
(x) the total accountability.
Dimension-Sense of Responsibility for Society
3 7 11 15 19 23 27 31 35 39
High V l l c v c v l l c
(P)
Avera C c v l c l c c c l
ge
Zero L v c v l v l v v v
(x)

17. EEFECTIVENESS OF TEACHERS
KNOWLEDGE ON THE BASIS OF THE
FOLLOWING FACTORS
1. Information skill
2. Motivator
• 3. Disciplinarian
• 4. Advisor and guide
• 5. Relationship with pupils
• 6. Fellow teachers, principals and parents
• 7. Teaching skill
• 8. Co-curricular activities
• 9. General appearance and habits in relation to class-room
• 10. Class-room management.

18. CR-TEST adopted for statistical calculations
for comparing the significance difference
between the two means.
• Formula For - CR Test/ t-value test
M1 M 2
CR
2 2
( N1 1) 1 ( N 2 1) 2 1 1
N1 N 2 2 N N
• Where, 1 2
• CR - Critical Ratio
• M1 – Mean of first sample
• M2 – Mean of Second sample
• 2 - Square of Standard Deviation of first sample
1
•
•
2
• 2 -Square of Standard Deviation of Second sample
• N1 - Number of scorers of first sample
• N2 - Number of scorers of Second sample

19. Representation, Analysis and
Interpretation of Data
1. Analysis of mean scores data
2. T-critical value test
3. Hypotheses
4. Table mean scores hypotheses-1
5. Graphical presentation hypotheses-1
6. Analysis hypotheses-1
7. Interpretation hypotheses-1
8. Table mean scores hypotheses-2
9. Graphical presentation hypotheses-3
10. Analysis hypotheses-2
11. Interpretation hypotheses-2
12. Table mean scores hypotheses-3
13. Graphical presentation hypotheses-3
14. Analysis hypotheses-3
15. Interpretation hypotheses-3
16. Table mean scores hypotheses-4
17. Graphical presentation hypotheses-4
18. Analysis hypotheses-4
19. Interpretation hypotheses-4

20. Analysis of Data
• 1 Analysis of scores of male & female teachers
• 2 Analysis of scores of rural & urban teachers
• 3 Analysis of scores of effective & ineffective teachers
• 4 Analysis of scores of high teachers experience & low teaching
experience.
• 5 Analysis of scores of teacher’s accountability in relation to
students.
• 6 Analysis of scores of teacher’s accountability in relation to
guardian
• 7 Analysis of scores of teacher’s accountability in relation to
school.
• 8 Analysis of scores of teacher’s accountability in relation to society

21. t-critical value test used for rejection
of the null hypothesis
There’s the t-critical value test used for
rejection of the null hypothesis found for
(N1+N2-2)degrees of freedom, using the t-
distribution table to see the main and
interactive effects of sex (male & female),
(rural & urban), experience (High experience
& low experience) and effectiveness of
teaching (Effective & ineffective) upon their
teacher accountability.

22. HYPOTHESES
TOTAL 23 HYPOTHESES COMPARISIONS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, ALL HYPOTHESES ACCEPTED AS PER
ANALYSIS
Representation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data Of Red marked Four hypotheses iare shown in slides 23- 38
1. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers.
2. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers.
3. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers.
4. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary
school teachers.
5. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers.
6. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers
7. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers.
8. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers.
9. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience secondary school
teachers.
10. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of female
secondary school teachers.
11. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience urban male and rural female secondary school teachers.
12. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience urban male and rural male secondary school teachers.
13. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience urban male and rural male secondary school teachers.
14. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience urban male & female secondary school teachers.
15. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience rural male & female secondary school teachers.
16. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience urban male and rural female secondary school teachers.
17. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience rural male and urban female secondary school teachers.
18. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience urban male and rural female secondary school teachers.
19. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience rural male and urban female secondary school teachers.
20. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of Effective/ineffective male and female secondary school teachers.
21. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of Effective/ineffective urban and rural secondary school teachers.
22. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of Effective/ineffective male and female secondary school teachers.
23. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of Effective/ineffective urban and rural secondary school teachers

23. Hypotheses – 1
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE
ACCOUNTABILITY MEAN SCORES OF MALE AND
FEMALE SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
1.1 CR-VALUE OF TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY SCORES OF MALE AND FEMALE
TEACHERS
Source of Df N Mean σ σ² CR-Value Level of
Variation (Degrees (scores/ (Standard (Square significanc
Deviation) e
Of sample) Standard
Deviation)
Freedom)
Male
273 83.31 4.55 20.715
Group
1: 348 0.238 0.05
Female
77 83.37 4.82 23.264
Group

24. Hypotheses – 1
Bar Diagram of Accountability of Male and Female teachers
100
90
83.31 83.37
80
70
60
Accountability
50
40 Mean SD
30
20
10 4.55 4.82
0
Male Female
Teacher Teacher

25. Analysis hypotheses-1
1.1.1 Analysis:
Table 1.1 includes the CR- value of main
effects of male and female teachers of secondary
schools which is 0.238 at the degree of freedom
(1: 348). In the statistical table the CR- value for
(1:348) df is 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance.
Since the CR- value of 0.238 for sex do not
exceed the CR- value of 1.96 at 0.05 level of
significance at df (1:348). So the difference
between male and female secondary school
teachers is not significant.

26. Interpretation hypotheses-1
1.1.2. Interpretation of Main Effects:
• The analysis Table 1.1 shows the
accountability scores were not significant
at the value 0.05 level of significance for
sex.
• Hence the null hypothesis "There is no
significant differences in the accountability
mean scores of male & female secondary
school teachers" is accepted.

27. Hypotheses – 2
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE
ACCOUNTABILITY MEAN SCORES OF THE RURAL &
URBAN SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
2.2 CR-VALUE OF TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY SCORES OF URBAN AND RURAL
TEACHERS
Source of Df N Mean σ σ² CR-Value Level of
Variation (Degrees (scores/ (Standard (Square significanc
Deviation) e
Of sample) Standard
Deviation)
Freedom)
Urban
273 83.31 4.95 24.570
Group
1: 348 0.060 0.05
Rural
77 83.33 4.14 17.165
Group

28. Hypotheses – 2
Bar Diagram of Accountability of Urban and Rural teachers
100
90
83.31 83.33
80
70
Accountability
60
50
40
Mean SD
30
20
10 4.95 4.14
0
Urban Rural
Teacher Teacher

29. Analysis hypotheses-2
• 2.2.1 Analysis:
• Table 4.2 includes the CR-value of main
effects or rural and urban secondary school
teachers which is 0.060 at the degree of freedom
(1.348). In the statistical table the CR-value for
(1.348) df is 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance.
Since the CR-value of 0.060 for locality do not
exceed the t-value of 1.96 at 0.05 level of
Significance at df (1.348). So the difference
between rural and urban secondary school
teachers is not significant. The graphical
representation is shown on the following page.

30. Interpretation hypotheses-2
• 2.2.2 Interpretation of main effects:
• The analysis Table 2.2 shows the
accountability scores were not significant
at the value 0.05 level of significance for
locality.
• Hence the null hypothesis "There is no
significant difference in the accountability
mean scores of rural and urban
secondary school teachers" is accepted.

31. Hypotheses – 3
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE
ACCOUNTABILITY MEAN SCORES OF EFFECTIVE &
INEFFECTIVE SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
3.3 CR-VALUE OF TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY SCORE OF EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE
TEACHER.
Source of Df N Mean σ σ² CR-Value Level of
Variation (Degrees (scores/ (Standard (Square significance
Deviation)
Of sample) Standard
Deviation)
Freedom)
Effective
141 83.51 4.86 23.694
Group
1: 348 1.334 0.05
Ineffective
209 83.20 4.42 19.603
Group

32. Hypotheses – 3
Bar Diagram of Accountability of Effective and Ineffective teachers
100
90
83.51 83.20
80
70
Accountability
60
50
Mean SD
40
30
20
10 4.86 4.42
0
Effective Ineffective
Teacher Teacher

33. Analysis hypotheses-3
• 3.3.1 Analysis:
• Table 3.3 includes the CR-value of main
effects of Effective and Ineffective secondary
school teachers which is 1.334 at the degree of
freedom (1.348). In the statistical table the Cr-
Value for (1.348) df is 1.96 at 0.05 level of
significance. Since the Cr-Value of 1.334 for
effectiveness of teaching do not exceed the Cr-
Value of 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance at df
(1.348). so the difference between effective and
ineffective secondary school teachers are not
significant.

34. Interpretation hypotheses-3
• 3.3.2. Interpretation on Main Effects:
• The analysis of Table 3.3 shows the
accountability scores were not significant
at 0.05 level of significance for
effectiveness.
• Hence the null hypothesis "There is no
significant difference in the accountability
mean scores of effective and ineffective
secondary school teachers" is accepted.

35. Hypotheses – 4
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE
ACCOUNTABILITY MEAN SCORES OF HIGH
TEACHING EXPERIENCE & LOW TEACHING
EXPERIENCE SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
4.4 CR-VALUE OF TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY SCORE OF HIGH TEACHING
EXPERIENCE AND LOW TEACHING EXPERIENCE TEACHERS
Source of Df N Mean σ σ² CR-Value Level of
Variation (Degrees (scores/ (Standard (Square significance
Deviation)
Of sample) Standard
Deviation)
Freedom)
High Exp. 75 21.516
83.58 4.63
Group 1.197 0.05
1: 348
Low Exp. 275 21.183
83.25 4.60
Group

36. Hypotheses-4
Bar Diagram of Accountability of High Teahing
Experience and Low Teaching Experience
100
90
83.58 83.25
80
70
Accountability
60
50
Mean SD
40
30
20
10 4.63 4.60
0
High Experience Low Experience
Teacher Teacher

37. Analysis hypotheses-4
• 4.1.1 Analysis:
• Table 4.4 include the CR-value of main effects of
high teaching experience and low teaching experience
secondary school teacher which is 1.197 at the degree
of freedom (1:348). In the statistical table the CR-value
for (1:348) df is 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance. Since
the CR-value 1.197 for experience does not exceed the
CR-value of 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance at df
(1:348). so the difference between high teaching
experience and low teaching experience secondary
school teachers are not significant.

38. Interpretation hypotheses-4
• 4.4.2. Interpretation on Main Effects:
• The analysis of Table 4.4 shows the
accountability scores were not significant at
the value 0.05 level of significance for
teaching experience.
• Hence the null hypothesis "There is no
significant differences in the accountability
mean scores of high teaching experience and
low teaching experience of secondary school
teachers" is accepted.

39. SUB HYPOTHESES
TOTAL 32 SUB-HYPOTHESES COMPARISIONS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, ALL
SUB-HYPOTHESES ACCEPTED AS PER ANALYSIS
1. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers in relation to students.
2. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians.
3. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers in relation to schools.
4. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of male & female secondary school teachers in relation to societies.
5. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers in relation to students..
6. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians.
7. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers in relation to schools.
8. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of rural and urban secondary school teachers in relation to societies.
9. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers in relation to students.
10. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians
11. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers in relation to schools.
12. There is no significant difference in the accountability mean scores of effective and ineffective secondary school teachers in relation to societies.
13. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers in
relation to students.
14. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians.
15. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers in relation to schools
16. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high teaching experience and low teaching experience of secondary school teachers in relation to societies.
17. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers in relation to students.
18. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians.
19. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers in relation to schools.
20. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural male secondary school teachers in relation to societies..
21. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers in relation to students
22. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians
23. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers in relation to schools
24. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of urban and rural female secondary school teachers in relation to societies
25. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers in relation to
students
26. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians
27. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers in relation to schools.
28. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of high experience male and female secondary school teachers in relation to societies.
29. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers in relation to students
30. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers in relation to Guardians
31. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers in relation to schools
32. There is no significant differences in the accountability mean scores of low experience male & female secondary school teachers in relation to societies

40. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
1. Sex had no impact on teacher’s accountability. Because accountability is free
from boundary of sex. Accountability is an internal matter of human beings.
2. After the discussion we reached on that the locality had no impact on
accountability of teachers. Because the concept of accountability is very
brood. Now it is clear that accountability is an internal expression.
3. Effectiveness also had no impact on teacher’s accountability. Because
accountability is an internal matter of human beings. Accountability has no
relation.
4. After the discussion we reached on that the teaching experience had no
impact on teacher on teacher accountability. Because accountability is an
internal matter of human beings, so it is free from any boundary including
teaching experience. Thus there is relationship between teacher
accountability and teaching experience.
5. Male and Female teachers are equally accountable towards
students, guardian, school and society.
6. Urban and Rural teachers are equally accountable towards
students, guardian, school and society.
7. Effective and Ineffective teachers are equally accountable towards
students, guardian, school and society.
8. High Experience and low Experience teachers are equally accountable
towards students, guardian, school and society.

41. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
• The teacher accountability is a social emotional element
and the teacher is to realize a sense of duty in himself
that he owes much to society and educating children of
society at different level of educational set up. For
arousing such a moral sense the teacher ought to be
given a status in the society. He was 'Guru' in the future
and he is 'Guru' in the present and he will be a Guru in
the future also.
• The accountability of teachers can be roused by making
them conscious of their rights and their duties through
equalization of opportunities meaning provisions of
all, opportunities to all teachers who have the required
ability to profit from their educational skills and which can
contribute to social good in return.

42. LIMITATION OF THE FINDINGS
1. The findings are based only on secondary school teachers.
2. The findings will applicable to practical aspect rather than the theoretical part
of the content because accountability is highly specific and goal oriented.
3. The findings are based only on questionnaire. Therefore, the study is
qualitative rather than quantitative.
4. The present study is a survey type research. By its nature it is limited
because a survey type research "builds a body of facts that is usually only of
logical significance and may contribute to the solution of immediate
problems. It is therefore, not likely produce direct evidence of any casual
relationship.
5. All the popular secondary schools of Jodhpur and Barmer District of
Rajasthan, are selected for the study. This is done because it is not possible
for investigator to include other districts of Rajasthan due to limited
resources and potentialities.
6. Only 31 Secondary Schools of Barmer and Jodhpur district has been
included.
7. The study is conducted on 350 teachers of secondary schools.
8. Male and female, rural and urban both are selected in this study.

43. SUGGESTION FOR THE
FURTHER POSSIBILITIES
1. It may worthwhile to sense of accountability among teachers in relation to
sex, locality and training.
2. A comparative research can be designed to study sense of accountability
among teachers in relation to social system.
3. Accountability of teachers can be studied in relation to their values and
cognitive process.
4. Studies can be under taken for the degree college/university teachers on
same variables.
5. Accountability of the teachers can be studied in relation to
their academic achievement, creativity and job satisfaction.
6. Accountability of teachers can be studied in relation to their
socio-economic status and achievement motivation.
7. Accountability of teachers can be studied in relation to their
personality traits.
8. Neuroticism, intelligence and cognitive process can be
compared for male & female teachers in relation to their
accountability.
9. A follow up programme may be designed to ascertain sense
of accountability among secondary school teachers.

44. CONCLUSIONS
• Child education in India is in a mess...
• Lack of Resources
• Poor Accountability
• Other Factors
• Too many children; too few teachers. Even fewer “good” teachers.
• Poor Infrastructure. Half the schools don’t even have provision for drinking water.
• Myth: Parents don’t want to send their kids to school.
• Reality: There are no good schools at all!
• Even there are no frequent teacher training sessions facilities available.
• “Good” Education is accessible to a minority of the Indian populace.
• Even where kids want to learn, they can’t do so.
• Poverty: Education is free on paper, not in practice.
• Social Stigma: More girls dropping out of schools than boys.
• Skewed Govt. policies: Part of public education funding goes towards subsidizing
private schools.
• These problems are the most “approachable”
of them all; let’s try and solve these first!

45. A BLISSFUL HEARTIEST THANKS
To,
. Dr. O.P. Sharma for making available his ripe
experience in this research.
. Dr. B. L. Jain, HOD Dept. of education, Jain Vishwa
Bharati Ladnun ,
. Dr. B.R. Dugar Director Research Dept.
. Librarian and other members of the Department and
college for their whole hearted co-operation and
encouragement.
. My husband Mr. BS Dhaka, my parents, brothers.
my beloved son and daughter for constant
encouragement and assistance rendered.
. Authors and publishers whose work have been
consulted and quoted in this study.

46. LIFE IS JUST LIKE ONE MAN ARMY
. GAME OVER
. NEVER GIVE YOUR BEST TO WIN THE GOAL
ALWAYS HAVE A BIT FOR LAST MOMENT TO
WIN
. AS YOU KNOW
. TOTAL ENERGY OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE REMAINS SAME
SAVE SOME ENERGY TO UTILISE FOR……..THE
DAYS…………..
. TEACHING IS A KIND OF ART. IT GIVES US
ENERGY, SATISFACTION SIMULTANEOUSLY MAKE US ABLE
TO UNDERSTAND ART OF LIVING.
Nahar Singh Ruhela
One of the most creative Idiot

47. SPECIAL THANKS
ALL PERSONS
OWE TO SEE
THIS
PRESENTATION

48. CONCLUSIONS