Because of the advent of collective negotiations, public education will never again be completely in control of local school boards. Collective negotiations will probably improve the quality of education to the extent that quality (higher salaries, smaller classes, better working conditions, etc.) coincides with the self-interest of teachers. The power accorded to teachers by collective negotiations can be crucial in professionalizing public school teaching, but if used selfishly it can encourage mediocrity, be detrimental to educational quality, and defeat the purpose for which the status of professionalism is awarded. Local school boards are anachronistic in many respects. Collective negotiations may focus attention upon their deficiencies and thereby bring about a more rational organization of local government along broader functional lines rather than wholly political lines. The logic of broadening the unit base for collective negotiations does not seem to square with developments in New York City's decentralization controversy. However, the problem in New York is one of identifying who the employer is. A possible solution is overlapping bargaining, with city-wide issues negotiated at the city level and local issues negotiated at the local board level in a manner similar to private industry. (TT)