most children would learn best in small community settings, rather than a large "melting pot"

a) the foundation for scaling down represents being "one"...you can't scale down further than one. Others suggest numbers to distract one from one-self.

b) the issue isn't about size of school or students; but the foundation of education through others...mass conformity to be educated by a few. This represents why one is tricked to view a few as the solution to the problematic many.

c) the suggested school system allows the few to vet those who stand out from the many, hence both non-conformists or exceptional conformists. The former gets isolated; while the latter gets elevated over the rest of the many, while helping to melt them.

d) a child needs to discern that learning for self represents teaching self and vice versa. Nature supplies the foundation for each ones growth of self discernment as perceivable inspiration, hence giving each one the free will of choice to adapt to perceivable (need) or ignore it for each others suggestions (want).

e) a child represents an OFF-spring, while the student/teacher dynamics tempts the child to stand under (understand) suggested information, hence binding oneself to those suggesting it. How could the child spring off if the child is bound to?

f) homeschooling tempts the parents to emulate school at home, which ignores that home exists before school. Sleight of hand: "home is where the heart is".

a natural learning environment

The surrounding (environ) of mind/memory (ment) represents perceivable inspiration aka moving differences aka the flow of input for the formed response within. The suggested curriculum (running course) by others tempts one to ignore the only running course for life...from inception towards death; hence within motion, and being moved from inception towards death implies the need for life to resist origin by adaptation to moving differences aka perceivable inspiration.

All of this can be discerned if one chooses to resist the temptation of suggested information by others. Self discernment cannot be gained through others, only by oneself.

I believe that a smaller environment enhances difference.

a) to believe represents ones consent to the suggestions of others, hence establishing a consenting many under a suggesting few, which in return tricks one to seek a smaller surrounding (environ) for ones mind (ment).

b) to be implies partial difference (perceiving) within whole sameness (perceivable)...others suggest the inversion aka equality (same) through diversity (difference).

c) ones choice to adapt to perceivable, while resisting suggested, enhances oneself. Ignoring the need to grow self by wanting to grow through others, curtails ones enhancement.

In a massive pool, there's always a bigger fish. There's always someone a million times better than you...

Both "bigger fish to fry" and "bigger equals better" represents suggested rhetoric to tempt one to reason (bigger vs smaller or better vs worse) over suggested; while ignoring perceivable.

Is there such a conflict of reason between a butterfly and a whale? What if one can choose to draw infinite inspiration through each, no matter the size or judgement made upon?

The mental state of reason/logic represents the distortion of ones perspective through the lens of conflict...others exploit this by suggesting competition over suggested outcomes.

In a smaller/tribal environment, you can truly be the best at something. You can be "special", for lack of a more adequate term.

a) what's more SPECIAL, noun "a particular" than ONE-self aka partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable)?

b) TRIBE, noun [Latin tribus.] - "descending from the same progenitor and kept distinct" refers to living (distinct) within the process of dying (same)...that represents ones perceivable tribe aka a division of whole into partial...not the suggested tribe tempting one into togetherness (socialism) with others.

To be implies apartheid (life) within wholeness (inception towards death); hence ones struggle to sustain self among others.

c) AD'EQUATE, adjective - "equal; proportionate"...see; there's the contradiction within your mind...you're trying to find an adequate (same) term for being different, which tempts you to ignore your proportion as ONE (unit) within all. Guess who suggested you the term "adequate"....

not to say that there's nothing to be gained from...

How could one gain anything from "nothing"? Consider if the few suggest nothing as the inversion of everything perceivable?

outside influence

To be implies within (life) fluid (inception towards death)...seeking outside influence from others tempts one to ignore being center (perceiving) of surrounding (perceivable).

a moderately sized environment

MOD'ERATE, adjective [Latin moderatus, moderor, modus, a limit.]...what if ones mind/memory is limited to oneself?