The objectives of study were: (1) To study the professional as well as academic equipment of teachers working in high achieving and low achieving secondary schools of Gujarat. (2) To study the mode of teaching procedure in the high achieving and low achieving secondary schools in Gujarat. (3) To study the facilities available for transaction of curriculum in the subject of English in the high achieving and low achieving secondary schools of Gujarat. (4) To study the procedure of evaluation prevailing in high achieving and low achieving English in the high achieving and low achieving secondary schools of Gujarat. (5) To study the nature of remedial program employed by high achieving English in the high achieving and low achieving secondary schools of Gujarat.

Stratified random sampling method was used. Sample consisted of 300 English teaching teachers of various districts of Gujarat during the academic year 1992 - 93.

The findings of study were: (1) Teachers belonging to low achieving group of schools have not shown their readiness in attending seminars and participation in discussions. Only 4% of them, as compared to 46% of high achieving group of teachers, had shown their interest. (2) Regarding the positive attitude towards consulting seniors, both the groups have shown their equal preference. (3) Regarding the habit of reading, the teachers, irrespective of their being in either group, have not cultivated habit of reading books to a great extent. (4) The innovativeness of the teachers plays a greater role in making the teaching-learning process alive. The group of low-achieving schools teachers are not innovative to a great extent in their teaching process. (5) Regarding the point of self-evaluation the notable lack of awareness in this respect has been found in the teachers of low achieving schools. The differences of 20% between the two groups were notable. (6) Large number of teachers belonging to low achieving group of schools did not care to a great extent regarding the inadequacy of the textbooks and a supplementary role played by instructional material as well. (7) The importance of planning has not been realized by majority of teachers belonging to both the groups. School authorities also were found not giving due emphasis to the importance of planning. (8) Teachers belonging to low-achieving group were not much interested in the academic discussions with the colleagues and within the group of English teachers. The difference of 24% between the two groups was evident of the fact that these teachers did not get benefit from mutual discussion. (9) Low achieving group of schools had to face the crisis of the availability of instructional material, and in number of schools in spite of having these facilities there was a lack of proper use of such facilities. (10) Further it was found that in low achieving school group the purchase of magazines was overloaded. Teachers naturally had to depend on whatever was available to them. (11) 96% of the teachers belonging to high achieving schools were aware of the importance of theoretical and functional knowledge of English, whereas the same was neglected by low-achieving school group to an extent of 68%. (12) In low-achieving group of schools, it was found that the development of reading skill of the students was neglected to a great extent. (13) Regarding the use of textbook, as it was treated by low-achieving schools group teachers, was just for the sake of completion of quantum of content. (14) Regarding the use of textual vocabulary, it was found that the responses of the teachers of both the groups were up to the level of satisfaction. (15) It was evident from the interpretation that majority of teachers belonging to high achieving group of schools were doing their best to adopt structural method and communicative approach but the same was not the case with the teachers belonging to low achieving group of schools. (16) Majority of teachers belonging to low achieving group were depending largely on mere translation into Gujarati of text-material. (17) A language game, drill material, assignments, use of workbook, recitation of poem and preparation of script for dialogue had a satisfactory place in the teaching procedures of the teachers of high achieving school group, whereas the same was neglected by low achieving group. (18) The allotment of periods was not equally distributed in the majority of low achieving group schools, whereas picture of the same in the high achieving group schools was at a level of some satisfaction. (19) Serious care had not been taken to get rid of the problem of inhibition of mother tongue faced by the students in both the groups. (20) Similarly considerable lack of awareness about the use of the diagnostic techniques and remedial approach was persistent in both the groups of schools. (21) So far the weightage of written as well as oral testing was concerned, theoretically teachers belonging to both the groups were agreed upon the principle of equal weightage to be given to both the aspects. (22) When the question of weightage comes to practical implementation the difference in both the group was found to a considerable extent. Teachers belonging to low achieving group of schools firmly believed in written test only, whereas teachers to a great extent, of high achieving group did try their best to give some emphasis to testing students’ achievement orally also. (23) Regarding the evaluation of different components like language skills, syntactical organization and so forth, the teachers belonging to low achieving group of schools were emphasizing the correctness of written expression. (24) The point of correctness of language in written test was not clear from the information collected through the tool. It is assumed that a greater emphasis might have been given to correctness of spelling and order to words in the sentence, whereas the improvement of the syntactical organization  has been neglected almost to a great extent.