According to this paper, educators are underwhelmed with the rhetoric characterizing federal officials' pronouncements about schooling. Education Secretary William Bennett is assailed for goading state legislatures into educational improvement efforts while downplaying federal responsibility in this area. This speech expresses serious reservations about state control and responsibility for education and examines three factors influencing earlier federal involvement: (1) Congressional action to broaden curricular opportunities beyond those provided by state or local anthorities; (2) judicial and executive action to assure personal access to education; and (3) the reluctance, historically, of many states to apportion their legislatures fairly. During the past five years, a dramatic consolidation of authority has occurred at the state level for two reasons: federal devolution and increased state legislation and mandates adopted by state boards of education. States have taken control back from local boards. From a federal perspective, increased state control means decentralization of authority; from a practitioner's perspective, such control means centralization of authority. Federal control is preferable because federal curriculum legislation is usually optional and impermanent. In contrast, state laws are mandatory and do not come up for periodic review. State controls are also more oppressive and pervasive, as seen in some examples from Georgia and Texas laws. (MLH)