Answer:
The Ghanaian example has shown that the issue of "personnel not facilities being the bane of quality public primary education" is very much debatable. Ab initio, the two contributors are important in the delivery of quality public primary education. Therefore, I will allocate the importance and the bane of quality education 50/50 to each of these aspects of education delivery.
Educational success cannot be achieved without the personnel being themselves of the highest quality, not only in terms of learning, but also in moral and ethical character formation and standing. This is important because education cannot be received without someone imparting it, and even some other persons helping the teachers to impart the desired knowledge and learning. A teacher or support staff who is morally depraved cannot impart quality education, especially at the primary level with pupils in their formative and tender years.
In the same light, nobody can expect the personnel to deliver quality education in a vacuum. The infrastructure or facilities are key in the delivery of quality education by quality personnel. These facilities are all-embracing and include many of the teaching aids required for successful education delivery, including the remuneration of the personnel. This makes this subject intricately intertwined. One cannot discuss an aspect without touching the other. The two must be effectively balanced in order to produce good results.
Explanation:
Pupils at the primary education level need teachers who will bear witness to what they teach and not just talkers. Good example teaches better than words. In the same way, good learning and teaching facilities aid in learning. That is why they are called learning aids. Education should not only be informative but should equally be "performative."
The answer is a b/c it alliterates the b's in the sentance.
An essay usually has 5 paragraphs, intro three body’s, and the conclusion so whatever your topic is about you would introduce it then go into it for the three paragraph and then conclude your essay.
Answer: Not fully.
Explanation: Even in communist societies, where the concept is for everyone to have the same thing, there is tension between different groups for inherent traits. It depends on your definition of "differences". If there were a group of people who knew nothing of racism, sexism, or any other -ism, it still wouldn't be possible for a society to be entirely accepting of others' differences. For example, maybe someone doesn't like someone else because of the pitch of their voice or a certain personality trait. Those are differences that you may not accept. Other differences could be actions some view as unforgivable, such as theft. In conclusion, I don't believe it's possible to have a society that fully accepts one another's differences. It is possible to have one that gets along together well, or even claims to love each other in all ways, but there will always be conflict between person to person and person to self. It's just life.
Answer:
I don't know because I am db
