Main Article Content


Teachers are best known for the role of educating the students that are placed in their care. It is quite astonishing that teacher in India often remain engaged in non- teaching activities and roped in to do other work too. It takes a toll on them and affects teaching and then also impacts upon quality education through poor results, non-teaching duties like election invigilation, population counting census work, involvement in midday meal program, voter list preparation keep teachers away from school and affecting their primary duty.

                Observations in relation with this study was done in 20 government schools from two district  Gaya and Nawada including  primary, secondary  and high schools in which number of selected teachers was 300. In all of them only 14% were having high educational qualifications and 44% were graduate or undergraduate. In the total number of teacher only 42% was trained. Results showing, the most teachers not like to be engaged in non-teaching work in comparison with their class teaching work.


Quality education, Government teacher, non-teaching duties, educational duty.

Article Details

How to Cite
Zakkia Masrror and Mohammad Danish Masroor, “IMPACTS OF NON-TEACHING WORK LOAD OF GOVERNMENT TEACHERS UPON QUALITY EDUCATION”, IEJRD - International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 5, no. ICIPPS, p. 5, Jun. 2020.


  1. Berry, B., Smylie, M. & Fuller, E. (2008). Understanding teacher working conditions: A Review and look to the future. Center for teaching quality.
  2. Berry, B. & Fuller, E. (2007) Stemming the tide of teacher alteration: How working conditions influence teacher career intentions and other key outcomes in Arizona. Hillsborough, NC: Center for teaching quality.
  3. Bill & Milinda Gats foundation: (2010, b). Working with Teachers to Develop fair and Reliable Measures & Effective teaching : MET Project Research Paper.
  4. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff. J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement Educational Evaluation and policy Analysis. 31, 416-440.
  5. Choy, S.P. (1996). Teacher's working conditions. Washington, DC; National Centres for Education Statistics.
  6. Darling - Hammond , L., & Youngs, P. (2002) Defining "Highly qualified teachers : What does "Scientifically based research tell us" Education Researcher. 31 (9). 13-25).
  7. Goe, L. (2007) . The link between teacher Quality and student outcomes : A research synthesis. Washingon, DC: National Comprehensive centre for teacher quality.
  8. Goe, L., Bell, C. & Little, O, (2008). Approaches to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness : A Research synthesis . NCCTQ.
  9. Little , J.W. (1990). The persistence of privacy : Autonomy nad Initiative in teachers professional Relations. Teachers College Record, 91 (4) , 509 - 536.
  10. Little, J.W. (1993). Teacher's Professional development in a climate of education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.15(2),192 -151.
  11. Markley T., (2006). Defining , The Effecting teaching : Current Arguments in Education.
  12. Vogt. w. (1984). Developing a teacher evaluation system spectrum. 2 (1), 41-46.
  13. Hindustan times, Jan 19, 2017, Article :- Teacher should not be assigned non-academic work ! PM - appointed panel.
  14. The Hindu. Nov, 01, 2016. Tanu Kulkarni Article :- Don't burden teachers with non-academic work. CBSE tells teachers.
  16. Govinda, R., (1995): Status of Primary Education of the Urban Poor in India: An Analytic Review. IIEP Paris: UNESCO.
  17. Government of India (2009): The Right of Children Free and Compulsary Education Act, No 35 of 2009, The Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary Part 2, Section 1, New Delhi.
  18. Rashmi, D,. (2012): Indian Small School; A Review of Issues and Related Concerns. NUEPA.
  19. Kumar, Krishna, Ensuring Education for All.