I'm pretty sure school has actually taken away my ability to read (novels) for pleasure. I can't say for certain that school was the cause, but back in middle school I read voraciously and now I don't and won't.

We gave a great deal of thought to these questions when we had kids, and our conclusions eventually became the name of our school, Eudaimonia Academy (all homeschools in TX are considered private schools).

"Eudaimonia" is one of those words that doesn't translate well, but one of the interpretations we like is "a flourishing life" (as opposed to mere "happiness"). This term plays a central role in Aristotle's Ethics as he asks questions about life that are very similar to the original post. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Aristotle's search for the good is a search for the highest good, and he assumes that the highest good, whatever it turns out to be, has three characteristics: it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake. Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudaimonia” (“happiness”) and “eu zên” (“living well”) designate such an end."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumGooFunArg

tcs -- it comes back. I went through the same thing, reading a ton in middle school, much less in high school, a little more in college, and now I read tons and tons. Speaking of which, I'm going to get back to my book.

"learn for the sake of learning"

Unfortunate, we don't learn at school. That's what we do at home.

...

I attend three schools: one private, two public.

The two public schools are exceptionally terrible at teaching, as teachers waste time doing tediously unimportant things. This may spawn from the fact that teaching, where I live, is like a job that people laugh at, just like garbage-collecting and manufacturing airplane toilets.

And the private school I attend is pretty good, where things are actually taught at a pace and there is an incentive for learning (in other words, we actually learn stuff that matters).

...

Public:
The students don't want to learn, because they don't learn anything interesting. The teachers don't want to teach, because the students don't want to learn (They're also not economically motivated to do much anyways). The school board doesn't want to change the curriculum, because that would cost money.

...

Private:
The students are learning and having fun at the same time because they are learning interesting and useful things (ok not always fun, but it's worth the time to get an A). The teachers stress the importance of learning, try to walk away from the GPAs and stuff. Alles gut. I think. Or so it seems to me.

...

So education costs money, but at the rate the government is spending (I'm pretty sure US government is worse at spending for education than Canada), we aren't going to get real education.

It's easy for the rather intelligent population here on AOPS to complain about the school systems. What I want to know is how an American, even with a mediocre education, compares to someone in some "democracy" where none is offered (if I knew my international politics better I'd put a specific country there). Maybe it is ineffective in our eyes, but that someone really young can go in and come out completely unenriched seems a bit outlandish to me.