\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Comparison between the Performance of Trained and Untrained Teachers in Lahore},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2013-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2013)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2013-01-15}
\title{Comparison between the Performance of Trained and Untrained Teachers in Lahore}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Muhammad  Arshad}

             \affil[1]{  University of Lahore}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 15 December 2012 Accepted: 1 January 2013 Published: 15 January 2013}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Training plays its crucial part in every field. In this research work, the role of training is evaluated in education sectors in Pakistan through primary data. The data was collected from trained and untrained teachers. The performance parameters are determined and then the performance of teachers is evaluated on these predetermined parameters. It was concluded that there is a significant difference between the performance of trained and untrained teachers in specific performance areas.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
ducation is very important for an individual's success in life. It provides pupils those skills that prepare them physically, mentally and socially for the world of work in later life. It is considered as a foundation of society, which brings sound economy, social prosperity and political stability. Although there is a great role of teachers in promoting education, but the efficiency and effectiveness of teachers depends upon the teacher's training. If the teachers are well educated and if they are intellectually alive and take keen interest in their job, then only, success is ensured. But, if on the other hand, they lack training in education and if they cannot give their heart to their profession, the system is destined to fail. The teachers are dynamic force of school. A School without teacher is just like a body without soul. This research is conducted to find out and prove the impact of teacher's training on their performance in Pakistani perspective. Successive education policies in Pakistan have also emphasized the role of teachers and need for their training. According to the recommendation of All Educational Conference in 1947, trained teachers were essential to build up the educational system. In 1959 National Education Report stated that no system of education is better than its teachers. It recommended far-reaching reforms in the education and training of teachers. In Educational policy 1972-80 it is recommended to establishment of Open University with a strong faculty for teacher education. In National Education policy 1998-2010, it is emphasized on the role of teacher in shaping the quality of education. It states, Teacher is considered the most critical factor in the entire education system.\par
In World Bank report  {\ref (1991)} it was mentioned that "Education quality at levels of schooling in Pakistan is widely acknowledged to be poor. Good quality edusa- 
\section[{Author}]{Author}\par
: Lahore Business School, The University of Lahore, Pakistan. E-mails : As.consultant@nokiamail.com, iqra4ever@gmail.com E tion depends on the availability and effective use of (a) teaching methodologies designed to encourage independent thinking, (b) capable, motivated, well trained teachers, (C) appropriate and well-designed curricula, (d) effective learning material. The situation in Pakistan's secondary schools falls short in most respects."\par
The basic purpose of this research is to determine the parameters of teacher's performance differentiate the trained and untrained teachers and compare their performance. After the comparison, provide the recommendation for the improvement of educational system.\par
In Pakistani perspective, although there is very tough to determine the impact of teachers training on teachers performance.We divide the schools at secondary level in two categories Private and Government sectors. 
\section[{a) Educational institutions in Pakistan i. Private Schools}]{a) Educational institutions in Pakistan i. Private Schools}\par
The private schools are also categories into two sub categories.\par
a. Professionally not developed schools b. Professionally developed schools. 
\section[{Professionally not developed schools}]{Professionally not developed schools}\par
Theseare the schools which are working under the owners of the schools. In these schools, the head and the teachers all are nonprofessionals. They are less qualified and have no any training or professional degree in their field. The owner of the school is also the principal of the school. They first focus that on minimum cost on human resource management. These types of schools are developed in rural areas. There fees are affordable for the low income persons. Here traditional teaching methods are used normally. The average of study hours at primary level is 5 to 6 and from middle to matric 6-8 hours respectively. Traditional management system is used in such type of schools. Due to strict monitoring and controlling system, the performance of students remains good. Sometime the results are even better.\par
system and trained teachers, the performance of the students is appreciateable. But their fee structure is very high; due to this, students belonging to middle class family cannot have access to educate their children in such type of schools.\par
ii. Government Schools Government Schools in Pakistan are well developed under the supervision of ministryof education and have a good capital infrastructure. Rules and regulation for the recruitment of teachers both for secondary and primary level require a person having bachelor degree along with a professional degree of PTC, CT, B.Ed. etc. Although, the government schools have a large capital infrastructure, professionally developed teachers, but the performance level in government sector is lower comparatively to private sector. Due to certain reasons the performance of government sector is lower. The main among these is the poor monitoring and controlling system.\par
Basic purpose of this research is to measure the impact of teachers' training on theirperformance and prevailing conditions in which the teachers are performing their role. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Literature Review}]{Literature Review}\par
A considerable amount of literature is available that supports the teacher's training and its impact on teachers performance. Mostly the planners of the teacher education programs rely on experience and subjective perception. The earlier literature refers that there is a positive relationship between training and behavior of teacher which results in betterclassroom performance and effectiveness of teacher. In early work on teacher productivity, researchers estimated education production functions by regressing aggregate student achievement levels on measures of teacher training and various other controls using cross-sectional data \hyperref[b2]{(Hanushek, 1986)}. \hyperref[b0]{(Bressoux, Kramarz, \& Prost, 2005)} examined the performance difference of trained and untrained teachers in mathematics subject in France. They use the Quaise experimental design for this research. Two same classes of same numbers of students were taught for 1 year of period by trained and untrained teachers found the difference between the scores of students taught by trained and untrained teachers.\par
In a meta-analysis of 93 studies of the effect of teacher development on student performance, (M., 1987) reports that only 12 studies show positive effects of staff development. \hyperref[b4]{Dildy (1982)}, examined the results of a randomized trial, find that teacher training increases student performance. \hyperref[b13]{Angrist and Lavy (2002)} found a strong effect of teacher training in his research paper.\par
Farida \hyperref[b5]{Lodhi (2000)} completed his M.Phil thesis on performance of trained teachers in comparative perspective and found the significant impact of training on teachers' performance. Her research scope was limited to the secondary school teachers in the Area of Karachi.\par
As discussed by \hyperref[b6]{Rockoff (2004)}  Muhammad ShahidFarooq, NeelamShahzadi (2006) compared the effectiveness of trained teachers and untrained teachers in Mathematics subject. The research scope is limited only to the MuzaffarGarh city schools. They found the significant difference between the performance of the students in mathematics taught by trained and untrained teachers. They also studied the gender impact on student performance but could not find significant difference in male and female students' scores.\par
Harris and Sass (2007) utilized panel data matching students and teachers to specific classrooms to estimate the effects of teacher education and training, distinguishing between specific types of undergraduate coursework and also between different types of profesional development training. Their results indicated generally positive but mixed effects for years of experience but no significant effects for obtaining an advanced degree. These findings corroborate results from a number of other studies (Rice, 2010).\par
Ana Filipe José Passos (July, 2009) completed his PHD thesis on Teacher competence and its effect on Pupil performance in upper primary schools in Mozambique and Other Sacmeq countries. They found the relationship between teacher competence and pupil performance in reading and mathematics in upper primary schools in Mozambique as well as in Sa CMEQ countries, influenced by a cognitive domain, an affective domain and behavioral domain.\par
In a research conducted by Robert G. Valletta, K. Jody Hoff, Jane S. Lopus (2012) it was found that there is a great impact of student's attitude toward the subject of economics. In this research the data of California high school economic class survey 2006 was used to determine the effect of students and teachers of student's achievement. 
\section[{III. Objectives}]{III. Objectives}\par
To define the parameters of teacher performance. To evaluate the performance of trained and untrained teachers. To compare the performance of Private and Government sector teachers.  
\section[{Methodology}]{Methodology}\par
This research methodology adopted is objective. The framework of this research is consisted on one independent variable and fourteen dependent variables. Independent variable is the teacher training and the dependent variables are teachers style of teaching, lesson planning, maintain classroom disciplines, etc. The performance of trained and untrained teachers is evaluated in this research. All the teachers belonging to teaching profession in government and private sector who have got formal pre service training such as PTC, CT, B.Ed, M.Ed, etc are considered as trained teachers and those who did not get pre service formal training are untrained.\par
Primary data used for the evaluation of impact of independent variable on dependent variables, is based on two questionnaires, consisted on closed ended questions, one for teachers and other for students. Although the data collection through questionnaire is very tough task, but we completed it in a very efficient way.\par
The population of this research is all the teachers and students of primary, middle and secondary level in private and government schools of District Kasur and District Lahore. Although the population is very large, it was very tough to collect data from all the population. So, for this research we develop a sample of 150 teachers and 300 students randomly from District Kasur and District Lahore.\par
We classified teachers sample in three groups, 50 trained teachers from private schools, 50 untrained teachers from private schools and 50 trained teachers from government schools. The sample is further classified into male and female. On the basis of level of classes, the teachers are further classified into primary, elementary and secondary groups.\par
To removebiasness, and for reliability and validity of data, data was not only collected from teachers, but also students. From all the students of District Kasur and District Lahor, 300 students as sample is taken. These 300 students are classified in three groups, 100 students taught by untrained teachers in private sector, 100 students taught by trained teachers in private sector, and 100 students taught by trained teachers in government sector. The sample is consisted on 150 female students and 150 male students. Students are also categorized into primary, elementary and secondary level. The sample was selected randomly from different schools of both districts.\par
For the data collection we used questionnaire tool. We got filled these questionnaires from teachers and students by visiting in different schools of villages and urban areas. The questionnaire of teachers is consisted on 27 items of closed ended questions in simple but comprehensive language. For the reliability of data, the questions are designed in straight forward mode. The student questionnaire is consisted on 16 items. The student questionnaire is closed ended and designed in Urdu Language, so that they can easily understand and answer the questions.\par
The data collected is entered in SPSS for evaluation. After that it is edited, all the missing values are corrected. The values of all variables are prepared very carefully. Frequencies and percentages are used to count the data. On the basis of these frequencies, the competencies of the teachers are measured and analyzed the performance differences between the trained and untrained teachers.\par
V. 
\section[{Analysis and Results of Teachers' Data a) Particulars of the respondents (Teachers)}]{Analysis and Results of Teachers' Data a) Particulars of the respondents (Teachers)}\par
That data was collected from the 150 teachers from District Kasur and District Lahore. Firstly we will For this research, the primary data is analyzed through SPSS. We collected data from teachers and students. So, our analysis of the data is consisted on two parts, analysis of the teachers' data and the analysis of the students' data. Here we are going to discuss the teacher's data. 
\section[{Global Journal of Human Social Science}]{Global Journal of Human Social Science}( D D D D ) G Year 2013 © 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)\par
Comparison between the Performance of Trained and Untrained Teachers in Lahore Volume XIII Issue W III Version I discuss about the particular of the respondents. Table \hyperref[tab_3]{5}.1.1 describes, there are total 150 respondents in which the 50\% male and 50\% percent are female.\par
The Table \hyperref[tab_3]{5} The teachers are categorized in three levels, PST, EST and SST. During the data collection, All these categories are treated equally. The number of the each level teachers is mentioned in Table \hyperref[tab_3]{5}.1.5.\par
During the data collection it was found the majority of the teachers have the Master's degree in the academic qualification. That is a plus point for education sector. The teachers who completed their graduation are 41\%. Some teachers are those who are just intermediate, although their percentages is just 8.7\%, but it's not considered good (Table \hyperref[tab_3]{5}.  {\ref 1.6)} .\par
In this research, 50 teachers are untrained and 100 teachers are trained who got the professional qualification. According to the table 5.1.7 the majority of the professional teachers are those who got the B.Ed degree. The teachers who got M.Ed degree are 21.3\%.  Comparison between the Performance of Trained and Untrained Teachers in Lahore 
\section[{Volume XIII Issue W III Version I b) Teachers' Performance Analysis}]{Volume XIII Issue W III Version I b) Teachers' Performance Analysis}\par
The questionnaire of teachers is consisted on 27 questions. The questionnaire is closed ended and every question has three options. These questions are about the different competencies of the teachers like as discipline, course completion and class management. In this questionnaire we selected 13 disciplines for comparison. In this analysis we are going to do twocomparisons, the comparison between the performance of trained and untrained teacher, the comparison between the private trained teacher and government trained teacher. For this comparison we used frequency tables that will clear the significant difference between the performance of the trained and untrained teachers. 
\section[{i. Class Discipline}]{i. Class Discipline}\par
According to the table 5.2it was found that 86\% of the untrained teachers have the capability to maintain discipline in the class, whenever the 92\% of the trained teachers manage the discipline very good in the class. That describes that there is a significant difference between the trained and untrained teachers in maintaining the discipline. During the comparison of Private and Government trained teachers it was found that the 90\% of the Private trained teachers manage the discipline well in the class whenever the 94\% Government trained teachers manage the discipline in the class. 
\section[{ii. Course Completion}]{ii. Course Completion}\par
In time course completion is a core task of the teachers, because without in time course completion, the students can't produce the good results. According to the response of the teachers, it was found 82\% of untrained teachers complete their course in time, whenever 88\% of the trained teachers complete their course in time. So, here is also the significant difference between the untrained teacher and trained teacher. During the analysis of the private trained teacher and Government trained teacher it was found, there is no significant difference between the private and Government trained teachers. 
\section[{iii. Individual Differences of the Students}]{iii. Individual Differences of the Students}\par
During the teaching process, the students' individual differences are most important. The teachers who care these individual differences are more successful rather than the teachers who do not consider these differences. According to the DrScharff the student have different language ability, different intelligence level, different habits and work routines and different psychology, due to these differences every student should be treated individually, so that the learning process can be efficient. The table 5.2describes that 54\% of untrained teachers consider the individual differences very much, and 69\% of the trained teachers apply the principles of individual differences, which describes there is a significant difference between the trained and untrained teacher. During the comparison of Private trained and Government Trained teacher it was analyzed, that the performance of Government trained teacher is better than the private trained teacher. 
\section[{iv. Use of Lecture Method}]{iv. Use of Lecture Method}\par
Lecturer method is normally used in teaching process. Both trained and untrained teachers use lecture method, when we compare both categories, there was no significant difference was found. In 50 untrained teachers' sample, it was found 37 teachers use lecture method. As it is in 100 trained teachers, 73 teachers use very often lecture method. As it is the untrained teachers found 74\% using lecture method and trained teachers found 73\% using lecture method. Audio visual aids increase the effectiveness of the educational process. It is very usefulfor teachers to use the audio visual aids but many teachers did not focus on it. Through this research, it was found that just 28\% of the untrained respondents just use the audio visual aids,whenever 45\% of the trained teachers are aware to use of the Audio visual aids. So, there is significant different between the performance of trained and untrained teachers. During the analysis it was found that the 40\% of respondent from private trained sector aware the use of Audio Visual Aids, whenever the 50\% of respondent from government sector are aware the use of Audio Visual Aids. So, it is found there is a significant difference between the private trained teachers and government teachers' awareness about the Audio Visual Aids. 
\section[{v. Use of Audio Visual Aids}]{v. Use of Audio Visual Aids} 
\section[{vi. Assist the students in Personal Problems}]{vi. Assist the students in Personal Problems}\par
Trained teachers have the great tendency to help and assist the students. Through table 5.2 it was found that the 65\% of the respondents provide help very much to their students in their personal problems, whenever the untrained teachers have less tendency to assist their students. It was found, the 48\% of the untrained teachers assist the students in their personal problems. So, there is a significant difference between the trained and untrained teachers regarding the assistance of the student in their problems. In Private and government trained teachers these percentages are 64 and 66 respectively that describes there is a minor In this study it was found that 68\% of the untrained teachers use the class management techniques, 78\% of trained teachers use class management techniques that is greater than the untrained teacher. If we compare the private trained teacher and government trained teacher a very great difference was found in them. It was found the 92\% of the Government teachers use the class management techniques and private trained teacher are just 64\% who are using the class management techniques. 
\section[{viii. Attention to Individual Students}]{viii. Attention to Individual Students}\par
The teaching is the process in which teacher are to deal each individual student. It is the obligation of the teacher to understand the problems of the students, and provide personal attention to each student. During the study, it was found, 56\% of the trained respondents give personal attention to individual students, and 67\% of the trained teachers focus on individual students. So, it is found a significant difference between trained teachers and untrained teachers in this regards. If we compare the performance of private trained teacher and Government trained teacher, It was also a difference found between their performance. Private teachers are found more conscious in this era rather than Government trained teachers. 72 \% of the private trained teacher gives personal attention to individual student in the class, whenever In Government trained teachers, it was found 62\%. In this ways 10\% difference was counted.\par
ix. Use of Charts and Models Charts and models during learning process help the students in positive manner. They can enhance the student's learning capability. In class room using of charts and models are very necessary during the lesson. But their importance varies from subject to subject. In lesson planning the trained teachers also learn how to use the charts and models in teaching process. During the analysis, it was the using of charts and models were lower. Most of the teachers did not use charts and models because of cost saving. Just 36\% of untrained respondents described that they use charts in class rooms, whenever the 49 \% of trained respondents use the charts in the class. So, it was found a significant difference in trained and untrained teachers' performance. The model using was also found very lower just 22\% in untrained teacher and 39\% in trained teachers. There is also a difference between the private trained teacher and Government Trained teacher, the tendency to use the charts and model are greater in government teachers rather than the private trained teachers. Private trained teachers use charts and models 36\%. Government trained teachers use charts and models 62\% and 42\% respectively.\par
x. Teaching Style In study, it was found 82\% of untrained teachers are satisfied from their teaching style, and 89\% of the trained teachers are satisfied from their teaching style. So, the satisfaction level is greater in trained teachers regarding teaching style. During the comparison of trained and untrained teachers, government trained teachers are found more satisfied than private trained teachers. It is found, 84\% of private teachers are satisfied of their teaching style and 94\% of government teachers are satisfied in this regard. 
\section[{xi. Encourage the students to ask questions}]{xi. Encourage the students to ask questions}\par
In learning process, the students have many questions in their minds. Professional teachers always encourage the students to ask questions. In this study we found that the 81\% of the trained teachers focus to encourage the students to ask questions and give them proper answer. It enhances the students' knowledge. It was also found the government teachers have more tendency to encourage the student to ask questions. 
\section[{xii. Create interest in lesson}]{xii. Create interest in lesson}\par
The students understand more when the lesson is more interested, now it is the skill of teacher, how he can create interest of the student in lesson. The profession teachers always focus on it. The results of this study declare that the 84\% of the trained teachers create interest in lessons and 70\% of the untrained teachers focus to develop interesting lessons. So, it is found a significant difference between the trained and untrained teachers. During the study it was also found that there was no significant difference between the private trained teachers and government trained teachers in this era.  
\section[{Comparison between the Trained and Untrained Teachers}]{Comparison between the Trained and Untrained Teachers} 
\section[{Analysis and Results of Students' Data}]{Analysis and Results of Students' Data}\par
For this study, the data was collected from 300 students of same teacher who filled the questionnaire. All these students filled this questionnaire to give opinion of their particular teacher. Then this data is entered in SPSS. After editing the data, the frequencies are counted. Through the frequencies distribution, the significant difference was calculated. Analysis is divided into two parts, first is the particular of the students, and second is the analysis of the performance. 
\section[{a) Particulars of the Student's}]{a) Particulars of the Student's}\par
The data was calculated from 300 students. Table \hyperref[tab_8]{6}.1.1 describes that there are 50\% male students and 50\% female students. During the research, although the students were from different classes, so their ages were also different. Table \hyperref[tab_8]{6}.1.2 show the age distribution of the students. The majority of the students were from 10 to 15 years, they were 61.7\%. Some students were more than 15 years and 14\% students were below the age of 10 years. There are two major sectors that are providing education in Pakistan. These sectors are private and public. Table \hyperref[tab_8]{6}.1.3 describes that the data was collected from 100 Government institutions' students mean public sector schools' students and 200 from private institutions' students. So private and public sectors' students' ratio is 33.3:66.7. The data was collected from three level of the classes in schools. These levels are primary, elementary and secondary. The data was collected from 300 students and according to the table 6.1.4 it is clear that each level of three levels have equal percentage. The proportion of each level is 33.3\% in this study.  For the analysis, although there are two objectives, one is to find the difference between the trained and untrained teachers and second is to find the difference between the private trained and Government Trained teachers. So the sample is classified in three categories, private trained teachers, Government trained teachers, and untrained teachers. So, the data was collected from these categories students. Table \hyperref[tab_8]{6}.  {\ref 1.5} shows that the students who taught by private trained teachers are 33.3\%, students taught by Government trained teachers are 33.3\% and as it is the students taught by untrained teachers are also 33.3\%. The questionnaire of the students is consisted on 11 items. We will classify this analysis in two parts, Untrained versus trained and private trained versus Government trained teachers. 
\section[{i. Untrained versus trained comparison}]{i. Untrained versus trained comparison}\par
For this analysis, we filled questionnaire from students of trained and untrained teachers. In these questionnaires there are 11 items, each of the student give his opinion about his teacher in different era, through closed ended questions. During the analysis 74 \% student were satisfied from their teachers regarding of subject knowledge, In trained teachers, 85\% student s were found satisfied from them, this describes the significant difference between the untrained teacher and trained teacher.\par
To concentrate on individual student is the obligation of the teacher, Trained teachers were more found focusing on individual students, the percentage of students of trained teachers was 84\% whenever, on the other hand, 77\% students of untrained teachers described that their teacher focus on each of the student in the class.\par
Using of charts and models are also very important in learning process, but it is the defect of our education system, that its using is very small. Table \hyperref[tab_8]{6}.2(A) describes that the using of charts in trained teacher is just 34\% and using of model in trained teachers is just 26\%. In untrained teacher, this using also decreased more. The charts and models using in untrained teachers was found 19\% and 21\% respectively. Although the charts and model using in trained and untrained teacher is lower but the difference was also counted in them.\par
In class, the students have to face many problems due to lack of knowledge. The teachers should help them in their problems. In trained teachers, the tendency to assist the students in their problem was found more, 67\% students of the trained teachers accepted this thing. In this regard, 61\% students of untrained teacher described that their teachers help them in their problems. So, in this way, 6\% difference was found in this era.\par
Different teachers use different teaching styles, the basic purpose of the teacher is to make his lesson effective. According to the Table \hyperref[tab_8]{6}.2(A)the trained teachers have more effective teaching style, 85\% of their students are found satisfied from their teaching style. In untrained teachers, 74\% of the students were satisfied from teaching style.\par
The students want explanation in their lesson, because they want to complete their knowledge. That is the reason, in this era, to satisfy the student is some difficult. The table 6.2(A) described that the 81\% students of trained teachers were found satisfied in explanation of the lesson. And 67\% students of the untrained teacher were found satisfied in this regard. Here a significant difference of 14\% was found in trained teacher and untrained teacher.\par
Motivational tools influence the students in increase the learning outcomes. Teachers use these motivational tools, support the students, appreciate the students and encourage them to do struggle hard to produce maximum results. According to the table 6.2(A) it was found that 77\% students of untrained teachers accepted that their teachers use motivational tools in class. The students who are taught by trained teachers also accepted that their teachers use motivational tools and their percentage was 79. The 2\% difference was counted between their using of motivational tools.\par
Every studenthas many questions in his mind. When the students entered in academic session, here is a platform for students to get the answers of the question that they have in their minds. During the class, the students ask many questions and now it is the responsibility of teacher to encourage students on this action. Study shows that 61\% students of untrained teachers are encouraged by their teachers in this era. And 65\% students of trained teachers accepted that their teachers encourage them when they ask questions. In table 6.2(A) it is found, 90\% students of trained teachers are accepted that their teachers create interest very much in lesson. On the other hand 81\% students of untrained teachers accepted this thing about their teachers.\par
The study shows that 81\% of untrained teachers are considered as a favorite teacher by their students. And 90\% of trained teachers were considered favorite teachers by their students. So, it is found a significant difference between the trained and untrained teachers in this era.  
\section[{VII. onclusion}]{VII. onclusion}\par
This research indicates toward the effectiveness of training in education sector in Pakistan. A significant difference between the trained and untrained teachers in specific area of performance indicates the role of training to ensure an effective classroom performance. The performance of the teachers in specific area is evaluated and a significant difference was found. Trained teachers are found more effective in their performance than untrained teachers.\par
The second objective of this research was to evaluate the difference between the performance of private trained teachers and government trained teachers. In Pakistani education sector, there are two major types of educational institutions, Private and government institutions. During the analysis of the students data, the result was opposite to teachers data. In teachers' data analysis, we found that the Government trained teachers are more efficient in their work but the real picture is shown through the students' data. In students data a significant difference was found between private trained teachers and government trained teachers. According to the table 6.2(B), the 91\% students of private trained teachers were satisfied whenever in government trained teacher 79\% students were satisfied from their teachers' knowledge of subject. Study shows the private trained teacher give more individual attention to students rather than government trained teachers. Government teachers use chart and models in class rooms 41\% and 29\% respectively. Private trained teachers use charts and models 27\% and 23\% respectively. Assisting the students in their problem, explaining the concept and motivate the students to learn in all these areas, according to the students, the private trained teacher more focuses rather than the Government trained teacher. The data shows, the student of private trained teacher are more satisfied from teaching style of their teachers. In this analysis it is clear that 90\% student of private trained teachers satisfied from their teachers' teaching style and 80\% students of government teachers are satisfied from their teachers in this regard. Private trained teacher encourage the students to ask question 78\%. And Government teachers are found 52\% in this ere. Study also show that the private trained teachers create more interst in lesson and it was 93\%. The government teachers also create interest in lesson but they are lower than private teachers and their percentage was 87. In private and government trained teachers, 98\% of students consider their teacher as a best teacher, there was no significant difference was found. The detail of all the respondents is given in Table \hyperref[tab_8]{6}.2(B). \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
   \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
leave the profession and this can give the appearance\\
that experience raises teacher value-added when, in\\
reality, less effective teachers are simply exiting the\\
sample. Aaronson, et al. (2007) and Betts, et al. (2003)\\
find no significant correlation between teacher\\
experience and student achievement while Clotfelter, et\\
al. (2007) find strong positive effects. One difference in\\
these studies is that Clotfelter et al. utilize course-\\
specific end-of-course exams while the other studies\\
rely on more general achievement exams.\\
Douglas N. Harris and Tim R. Sass (March,\\
2006) examined the pre service training and in service\\
training effect on teacher's productivity, but they did not\\
find any evidence that teachers pre-service training or\\
college entrance exam scores are related to\\
productivity.\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
According to the table 5.1.3 the unmarried are\\
greater than married in teaching profession. The number\\
of married teachers is 51 that are the 34\% of all sample\\
and Unmarried teachers are 99 in number and are 66\%\\
of the sample.\\
Data was collected from government and\\
private schools. Table 5.1.4 describes, there are 66.7\%\\
teachers are related to private schools and 33.3\%\\
teachers are related to government schools in this\\
sample.\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5960059171597634\textwidth}P{0.10813609467455622\textwidth}P{0.07292899408284023\textwidth}P{0.07292899408284023\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{1.7 Professional Qualification}\\
Valid Nill\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 33.3\tabcellsep 33.3\\
PTC\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 3.3\tabcellsep 36.7\\
CT\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 3.3\tabcellsep 40.0\\
ATTC\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 1.3\tabcellsep 41.3\\
B.Ed\tabcellsep 51\tabcellsep 34.0\tabcellsep 75.3\\
M.Ed\tabcellsep 32\tabcellsep 21.3\tabcellsep 96.7\\
M.Phil\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 3.3\tabcellsep 100.0\\
Total\tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{The table 5.1.8 describes that majority of the}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{teachers have 2 to 5 years' experience in teaching. More}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{than 10 years experienced teachers are 26 and less}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{than 1 year experienced teachers are also 26\%.}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 5 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.23792535675082324\textwidth}P{0.04478594950603732\textwidth}P{0.10729967069154775\textwidth}P{0.0513172338090011\textwidth}P{0.004665203073545555\textwidth}P{0.020526893523600438\textwidth}P{0.0513172338090011\textwidth}P{0.19127332601536773\textwidth}P{0.08490669593852908\textwidth}P{0.03172338090010977\textwidth}P{0.024259055982436883\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.1\tabcellsep Gender\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{Gender Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Table 5.1.5 Academic Qualification}\\
Valid Male\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{50.0}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{50.0}\tabcellsep Qualification\tabcellsep Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent\\
Female Total\tabcellsep 75 150\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{50.0 100.0}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{100.0}\tabcellsep Valid PST EST\tabcellsep 50 50\tabcellsep 33.3 33.3\tabcellsep 33.3 66.7\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep SST\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 33.3\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Table 5.1.2 AGE}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Age\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Below 30Years}\tabcellsep 89\tabcellsep 59.3\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 59.3\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{30 to 39 Years 40 to 49 Years 50 Years and Above}\tabcellsep 35 20 6\tabcellsep 23.3 13.3 4.0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 82.7 96.0 100.0\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Table 5.1.6 Academic Qualificaiton Qualification Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent}\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{100.0}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Valid Intermediate\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 8.7\tabcellsep 8.7\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Graduation\tabcellsep 62\tabcellsep 41.3\tabcellsep 50.0\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Masters\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 50.0\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{Table 5.1. Marital Status}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Marital Status}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Frequency Percent}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Cumulative Percent}\tabcellsep \\
Valid Married\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 51\tabcellsep 34.0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 34.0\tabcellsep \\
Un Married Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 99 150\tabcellsep 66.0 100.0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep Degree Title\tabcellsep Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{Table 5.1.4 Status of School}\tabcellsep \\
Status of School\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Frequency Percent}\tabcellsep Cumulative Percent\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Government}\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{33.3}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 34.0\tabcellsep \\
Private\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{66.7}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{100.0}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: GYear 2013© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)]} 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 5 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.40753424657534243\textwidth}P{0.22123287671232875\textwidth}P{0.12226027397260272\textwidth}P{0.09897260273972602\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{1.8 Professional Experience}\\
Valid Less Than 1 Year\tabcellsep 39\tabcellsep 26.0\tabcellsep 26.0\\
2 to 5 Years\tabcellsep 49\tabcellsep 32.7\tabcellsep 58.7\\
5 to 10 Years\tabcellsep 23\tabcellsep 15.3\tabcellsep 74.0\\
More Than 10 Years\tabcellsep 39\tabcellsep 26.0\tabcellsep 100.0\\
Total\tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 5 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
2 (A) :\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: GYear 2013© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)]} 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 5 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2879032258064516\textwidth}P{0.12338709677419356\textwidth}P{0.3153225806451613\textwidth}P{0.12338709677419356\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.1 Gender\tabcellsep \\
Valid Male\tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep 50.0\tabcellsep 50.0\\
Female\tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep 50.0\tabcellsep 100.0\\
Total\tabcellsep 300\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 6 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3592783505154639\textwidth}P{0.26288659793814434\textwidth}P{0.13144329896907217\textwidth}P{0.09639175257731958\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1.2 Age Distribution}\tabcellsep \\
Valid Below 10 years\tabcellsep 42\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 14\\
10 to 15\tabcellsep 185\tabcellsep 61.7\tabcellsep 75.7\\
15 to 20\tabcellsep 73\tabcellsep 24.3\tabcellsep 100.0\\
Total\tabcellsep 300\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 6 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3012658227848101\textwidth}P{0.3120253164556962\textwidth}P{0.13987341772151898\textwidth}P{0.09683544303797467\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1.3 Status of School}\tabcellsep \\
Valid Government\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 33.3\tabcellsep 34.0\\
Private\tabcellsep 200\tabcellsep 66.7\tabcellsep 100.0\\
Total\tabcellsep 300\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_10}Table 6 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3339285714285714\textwidth}P{0.2125\textwidth}P{0.17202380952380952\textwidth}P{0.13154761904761905\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1.4 Class}\tabcellsep \\
Valid Primary\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 33.3\tabcellsep 33.3\\
Middle\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 33.3\tabcellsep 66.6\\
Secondary\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 33.3\tabcellsep 100.0\\
Total\tabcellsep 300\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_11}Table 6 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.6538461538461539\textwidth}P{0.056043956043956046\textwidth}P{0.07939560439560439\textwidth}P{0.06071428571428571\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{1.5 Students}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Valid Taught By\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Private Trained\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 33.3\tabcellsep 33.3\\
Teachers\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Taught Bye\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Government Trained\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 33.3\tabcellsep 66.6\\
Teachers\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Taught by\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Untrained\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 33.3\tabcellsep 100.0\\
Teachers\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep 300\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \\
b) Performance Analysis\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_12}Table 6 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.11015118790496761\textwidth}P{0.6076673866090713\textwidth}P{0.06792656587473002\textwidth}P{0.0642548596112311\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{2 (A) Comparison Between Trained and}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Untrained Teacher}\tabcellsep \\
No\tabcellsep Questions\tabcellsep Untrained \%\tabcellsep Trained \%\\
1\tabcellsep Knowledge of the subject\tabcellsep 74\tabcellsep 85\\
2\tabcellsep Give individual attention\tabcellsep 77\tabcellsep 84\\
3\tabcellsep Use of charts\tabcellsep 19\tabcellsep 34\\
4\tabcellsep Use of Models\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 26\\
5\tabcellsep Assist the student in their problems\tabcellsep 61\tabcellsep 67\\
6\tabcellsep Teaching style\tabcellsep 74\tabcellsep 85\\
7\tabcellsep Explain concepts\tabcellsep 67\tabcellsep 81\\
8\tabcellsep Motivate to learn\tabcellsep 77\tabcellsep 79\\
9\tabcellsep Encourage students to ask question\tabcellsep 61\tabcellsep 65\\
10\tabcellsep create interest in lesson\tabcellsep 81\tabcellsep 90\\
11\tabcellsep Consider your teacher as a best teacher\tabcellsep 84\tabcellsep 98\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 696\tabcellsep 794\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{ii. Private Trained Versus Government Trained}\\
\tabcellsep Teachers\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_13}Table 6 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.0353185595567867\textwidth}P{0.6333795013850415\textwidth}P{0.0894736842105263\textwidth}P{0.09182825484764542\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Pvt.\tabcellsep Govt.\\
No\tabcellsep Qustions\tabcellsep Trained\tabcellsep Trained\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep \%\\
1\tabcellsep Knowledge of the subject\tabcellsep 91\tabcellsep 79\\
2\tabcellsep Give individual attention\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 78\\
3\tabcellsep Use of charts\tabcellsep 27\tabcellsep 41\\
4\tabcellsep Use of Models\tabcellsep 23\tabcellsep 29\\
5\tabcellsep Assist the student in their problems\tabcellsep 77\tabcellsep 57\\
6\tabcellsep Teaching style\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 80\\
7\tabcellsep Explain concepts\tabcellsep 92\tabcellsep 70\\
8\tabcellsep Motivate to learn\tabcellsep 89\tabcellsep 69\\
9\tabcellsep Encourage students to ask question\tabcellsep 78\tabcellsep 52\\
10\tabcellsep create interest in lesson\tabcellsep 93\tabcellsep 87\\
11\tabcellsep Consider your teacher as a best teacher\tabcellsep 98\tabcellsep 98\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 848\tabcellsep 740\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_14}}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter  			 \par
Comparison between the Performance of Trained and Untrained Teachers in Lahore Volume XIII Issue W III Version I teachers perform better in specific area of performance than private teachers. But we just cannot rely on teacher's data, for removing the biasness; we collected the data from the students that are basically indicator of performance of teachers. The students data indicate toward the opposite picture against the teachers' data. Here a significant difference was calculated in performance private trained teachers and government trained teachers. It shows the private trained teachers' performance is better than the government teachers' performance. 
\subsection[{VIII.}]{VIII.}\par
There should be continue and pre scheduled in service training system for both private and public schools teachers. There should be a monitoring system that can evaluate the performance of the teachers in all specific performance areas. Continuous improvement system should be developed that can evaluate the performance of each students. Through that the improvement of the students' performance is evaluated. The used of Audio visual aid should be increased in private and public schools. Although in government schools, the training sessions are managed, but in private schools there is not any arrangement of training sessions. So, training sessions should be managed for them. The policies should be developed by government for private schools about the recruitment of teachers in schools. So, that the private schools can only recruit the qualified and professional teachers. The performance of the government schools' teachers is lower than private schools teachers. To increase the performance of government school teachers, the targets should be assigned to teachers from the head of institutions. After that a control a monitoring system should be implemented for achieving the goals. New teaching methods should be developed, that can increase the educational outcomes. Teachers should be trained on new and advanced standards of education. 
\subsection[{Bibliography}]{Bibliography}			 			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Bressoux et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{},  		 			P Bressoux 		,  		 			F Kramarz 		,  		 			C Prost 		.  		2005.  	 
\bibitem[Passos ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{A Comparative Analysis Of Teacher Competence And Its Effect On Pupil Performance In Upper Primary Schools In Mozambique And Other Sacmeq Countries},  		 			Ana Filipe José Passos 		.  		2009.  	 
\bibitem[Teachers and Training]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Class Size and Students' Outcomes:Evidence from Third Grade Classes in France},  		 			' Teachers 		,  		 			Training 		.  		 	 
\bibitem[Angrist and Lavy ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘During this research, it was found many flaws in education system. Although training plays important role in effectiveness of the learning process, but there is a need of many improvement in education system regarding training program. The following recommenddations we suggest for the’.  		 			J Angrist 		,  		 			V Lavy 		.  		 doi: 10.1111/ 1468-0297.00068.  	 	 		\textit{The Economic Journal}  		2002. 112 p. .  	 	 (New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning. betterment of the education in private and public schools) 
\bibitem[Rockoff ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Education policy 1972-80. Islamabad, Printing corporation of Pakistan. Government of Pakistan (1978). National Education Policy 1978. Islamabad, Printing corporation of Pakistan. Government of Pakistan’.  		 			Jonah E Rockoff 		.  	 	 		\textit{Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association},  				 (San Diego, CA)  		2004. January 3-5, 2004. May, 2004. 1972. 1992. 94 p. .  	 	 (Government of Pakistan.. National Education policy 1992-2010. Islamabad, UGC Printing shop) 
\bibitem[Harris and Sass ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		 			Douglas N Harris 		,  		 			Tim R Sass 		.  		\textit{TEACHER TRAINING,TEACHER QUALITY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT},  				2006.  	 
\bibitem[Dildy ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Improving student achievement by appropriate teacher in-service training: Utilizing Program for Effective Teaching (PET). Education},  		 			Peggy Dildy 		.  		1982. 103 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Valletta et al. ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{Lost in Translation? Teacher Training and Outcomes in High School Economics Classes. 14. Government of Pakistan (1959) Report of commission on National Education},  		 			Robert G Valletta 		,  		 			K Jody Hoff 		,  		 			Jane S Lopus 		,  		 			East Bay 		.  		2012.  	 	 (Ministry of education) 
\bibitem[Muhammad Shahid Farooq and Shahzadi (2006)]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		 			Neelam Muhammad Shahid Farooq 		,  		 			Shahzadi 		.  		\textit{Effect of Teachers' Professional Education on Students' Achievement in Mathematics. Bulletin of Education \& Research},  				2006. June 2006. 28 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lodhi ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{Performance of Trained Teachers in a comparative Perspective},  		 			Farida Lodhi 		.  		2000.  	 
\bibitem[
			M
		 (ed.) ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{Professional Education and the Development of Expertise},  		 			M 		,  		 			K 		.  		E.Poth Koff (ed.)  		1987.  	 	 (Research in Education. Washinton D.C.) 
\bibitem[Koedel and Betts ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{Re-Examining the Role of Teacher Quality In the Educational Production Function},  		 			Cory Koedel 		,  		 			Julian R Betts 		.  		2007.  	 
\bibitem[Clotfelter ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects},  		 			Charles T Clotfelter 		.  		2007.  	 
\bibitem[Hanushek ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools’.  		 			A Hanushek 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Economic Literature}  		1986. p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
