districts are creatures of the state, and that when the issue of "appropriate legislation" is in contention, the state's decision is final, unless violative of another section of the constitution. The decision does not touch the issue of whether the state has provided an efficient system, and it certainly does not declare either directly or inferentially that a local school board cannot sue the state. Furthermore, appellants ignore the specific grant of power to local school boards to "sue or be sued" and to do all things necessary to carry out the duties of the local school boards. In Hogan v. Glasscock, Ky., 324 S.W.2d 815 (1959) we held that a local school board had the power to hire an attorney when such employment was necessary for their protection and the accomplishment of the purposes for which they were created. The attorneys were employed by the local board to defend an attack on the board members' method of providing public education. This case clearly reinforces the statutory duty of local school boards to promote local education and to defend lawsuits challenging their action, and to do all things which are necessary in the opinion of the local board to promote public education. KRS 160.160, 160.290(1). Appellants rely heavily on a case from a sister state to support their position. In East Jackson Public Schools v. State, 133 Mich.App. 132, 348 N.W.2d 303 (1984), several local school districts sought to overturn a legislative scheme of school financing, claiming a violation of the equal protection clause of the Michigan constitution. The boards did not claim to enforce any constitutional rights regarding public education. As the Court stated, "Education is not a fundamental right under Michigan Constitution of 1963." Id at 305. The following language seized on by appellants addressed the school districts' power to sue. "School districts and other municipal corporations are creatures of the state. Except as provided by their state, they have no existence, no function, no rights, and no powers. They are given no power, nor can any be implied, to defy their creator over the terms of their existence. They surely have no power to bring suits of such nature on behalf of residents within their boundaries, or to expend public funds to finance such litigation of, or on behalf of, private citizens." Id at 306. Although the language of this opinion is strong and unequivocal, it cites no authority for its position, and is certainly not persuasive in the case at bar. [FN16] [FN16. Furthermore, there is ample authority which is contrary to the Michigan case. See Dupree v. Alma School District No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983); Hornbeck v. Somerset County Board of Education, 295 Md. 597, 458 A.2d 758 (1983); Board of Education v. Nyquist, 57 N.Y.2d 27, 453 N.Y.S.2d 643, 439 N.E.2d 359 (1982); Seattle School District No. 1 of King County v. State, 90 Wash.2d 476, 585 P.2d 71 (1978); Washakie County School District No. 1 v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo.1980).] Unlike Michigan citizens, our citizens are given a fundamental right to education in our Constitution. Ky. Const. Sec. 183. That fundamental right is reiterated and expanded in our statutes. KRS 158.010 et seq. Moreover, our General Assembly has given local districts a perpetual, corporate existence, and has in two statutes, specifically given local boards virtual unlimited authority to carry out their duty of promoting local education. In Reeves v. Jefferson County, Ky., 245 S.W.2d 606 (1951), we declared that KRS 160.160 and KRS 160.290 "place upon the boards of education, not the taxpayers, the initial responsibility of maintaining legal actions on behalf of the school districts." Id. at 608. Perforce a lawsuit to declare an education system unconstitutional falls