In the controversy over the inclusion of the teaching-learning process (curriculum development and instruction) as a subject of collective bargaining, discussion should focus on the changes which it might produce in the teaching-learning process. Curriculum development is unlikely to be greatly affected by collective bargaining, and any changes in classroom behavior which result from teacher control over curriculum development will be minor. At the elementary and secondary level the main forces for charge, exogenous to whatever structure has formal curriculum control, will be the major curriculum development project and statewide committees which establish framework and guides. Both are dominated by university professors. In contrast, instruction will be profoundly influenced by collective bargaining with most changes for the good of students and teachers. Faculty curriculum committees which actually function as improvement of instruction committees need the strength which collective bargaining can offer. Administrators need not fear loss of power, which they never had, since positive classroom behavioral changes can only be induced through positive motivation. In a recent paper presenting the administration position on this subject, Dean Robert J. Alfonso of Kent State University presented seven predictions which, in my opinion, will not come true and ten suggestions which I must reject. (Collective bargaining agreements which include curriculum and instruction provisions are appended.) (Author/JS)