The Shame of Swedish Education: J’Accuse

In the United States, charities (501c3 non-profits) can indeed be run like businesses and there is "money to pull out". The non-profit status requires the organization to use all the money that it brings in, but it is free to use that money on paying high salaries to its management. Consequently, many non-profits become sinecures for their staff, a guaranteed source of a higher and more stable salary than they might find in some other job, and relatively little money is directed towards the charitable endeavours for which the money was ostensibly raised.

Now let me tell you about my experience. First, this school is very focused on marketing. They keep on doing things that are only for seemingly attracting students. For example, they made a "maker space" with more 3d printers than anyone could ever need. I'm not against 3d printers but who needs 10 when only one is being used at a time. They also failed to mention their shitty secondary basement location on a showing of the school for upcoming students. They literally bought a second location to double the amount of students, and it had air quality issues for two years. No windows except a few ones in the roof. This location still isn't mentioned to students looking at the school. Wonder why.

All of these marketing-focused efforts have real impacts for the students. For example, there isn't any room for a kitchen, so they give us lunch cards. These get loaded with 55kr each day (about $6.5). Then they have agreements with some local restaurants at which we eat. Problem is that normally those restaurants would change maybe $12. As a result very few of them allow us in and we get tiny portions. This is served to growing teens.

Now I have asd and bipolar-2. Don't even get me started on how badly they're able to handle that. Nothing really ever improves. It's all talk. As a result, I'm about to drop out.

  Schools do not treat stupid and intelligent children the same, teachers - with few exceptions - do. Not because they are evil, but because to be able to cater to the different levels of intelligence and the variation in interests that you will naturally find in a random sample of children they require the time and opportunities to do so.

  As long as we treat teachers as the least important workers, without acknowledging the critical work they do [0], have classes that have more pupils than a teacher can follow individually in a meaningful way and consider education "an expense" that needs reduction, rather than "an investment" we will not have a proper education system.

  On the flip side: an uneducated population is easier to sway, so there is not a lot of pressure on the political establishment to change things.

Would you have something to back this assumption up?