A number of educational finance proposals suggest that the State become the primary collector and dispenser of revenue to support public education. Under such proposals the State would become, in effect, the employer for collective bargaining purposes. Accordingly, this paper deals with representation issues, the scope of bargaining, and problems of resolving bargaining impasses. It also discusses the implications of State funding and Statewide collective bargaining. The main argument advanced in support of State assumption of all or nearly all costs supporting public education is that only through such a device can equality of educational opportunity be achieved. With the present inequality of wealth among school districts, one premise follows--that there is a close correlation between district wealth and educational opportunity. It follows because teachers are the chief ingredient of any educational enterprise, and some mechanism must be found to distribute teaching talent more equally; poor teachers should not be concentrated in the poor districts, while good teachers are concentrated in the rich ones. A Statewide collective bargaining arrangement providing for uniform conditions of employment would, according to this argument, take the comparative advantage away from the affluent districts and thereby promote greater equality. The concluding sections of this paper present comments critical of that proposed remedy. (Information on pages 48-67 not complete on this copy. (Author)