You've had the distinct advantage of beginning Life with a language little changed from its initial shift from ProtoGerman to Low Franconian (even if you grew up in Belgium, and your Dutch was dialectical, like Brabants and Flemish). In America, modern educational practise is to ignore then structure of the English language almost entirely, and to pretend that the Latin and Greek etymological antecedents - together with formation and relation prefixially and suffixially - are valueless, and instead to teach each (English) word as a separate fragment of vocabulary, rather than examining the root, extrapolating from it, and learning the language innately.
In Dutch or German, modern language is derived primarily "from itself," which is to say from ProtoGermanic platforms (again, save for the southern dialects which borrow so heavily from Middle French); in English, nearly three-quarters of the roots are derived from Latin etymological antecedents, and yet no Latin (not even a rote examination of the most common verb and noun forms) is taught when teaching English. Words like "accept," "inception," "exception," "capable," "perceive," "capacity," "receipt," "perceptive," "capture," "occupy," "conceit," "intercept," "receptacle," "recipient," and cetera are learned individually, rather than learning a single word in Latin - capere - and building the vocabulary of all of the above words from it.
I wish this remark wasn't absolutely true. Despite the fact that he was discussing "new ideas" as they related to visualising architecture, Alberti's famous remark, "commune hoc ignorantić vitium est: quć nescias, nequicquam esse profiteri," can be applied to the (perception of) learning of almost anything, and nowhere is this more glaringly apparent in the modern world than with language and the communications Arts.