Assembly. It defined "efficient" in an multi-faceted manner, and directed that all these criteria are not only relevant, but are essential, if the development of a constitutionally valid system of common schools is to be had. The trial court examined the evidence and declared that the present school system was unconstitutional. On appeal, this Court must now review the basis for the trial court's ruling. III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES The two remaining defendants, now appellants before this Court, raise numerous issues on appeal. They allege that the Council for Better Education, Inc., does not have either the legal authority or the standing to maintain this action; that the purported class action of the student plaintiffs is not proper; that only 5 of the 22 students are properly before the Court; that the complaint does not state a "cognizable claim" against the two named legislators; that the trial court erred in finding that the system of common schools provided by the General Assembly is not efficient; that the trial court erred in ruling that House Bill 1 and House Bill 44 are part of an unconstitutional system; [FN3] that the trial court's definition and standards set for an efficient school system are at variance with Section 183; that the trial court's strong reliance on foreign cases was inappropriate; that the trial court erred in declaring that the school system violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; that the trial court's judgment violates the separation of powers provisions of the Kentucky Constitution; and finally, it is claimed that the trial court erred in directing the expenses of the select committee to be paid by the Kentucky Department of Education. [FN3. H.B. 1 is codified as KRS 160.470 and H.B. 44 is codified in KRS 68.245, 132.010, .020, .023, .027, .690, other sections of Ch. 32, and 160.470. Throughout this opinion, the legislation will be referred to as H.B. 1 and H.B. 44.] Appellees, predictably, defend the trial court's action. Prior to dealing with these contentions we believe it would be beneficial to give a brief history of school financing in Kentucky, and to review the evidence before us. IV. SCHOOL FINANCING IN KENTUCKY--PAST AND PRESENT As originally enacted, Section 186 of our Constitution mandated that school funds appropriated by the General Assembly be apportioned to each individual local school district on the basis of a set amount for each child aged 5 through to 17 years. Thus, state money was given on the basis of a census of school age children--whether they attended school or not. Differences in populations of the districts were not perceived as affecting the quality of the education. In 1930, the General Assembly adopted a law (an Act approved March 15, 1930, Ch. 36, 1930 Ky. Acts, codified at KS 4364, 4399a-8, 4434a-14a) which appropriated state money for an equalization fund designed to increase per-pupil expenditures in those districts where the standard of education was low. That legislative effort was invalidated in Talbott v. Kentucky State Board of Education, 244 Ky. 826, 52 S.W.2d 727 (1932). The basis of the decision was that the attempt to equalize expenditures violated the mandate of Section 186--viz., state funds are limited to a per capita appropriation. In 1941, Section 186 was amended to permit 10% of state funds to be used for equalization purposes and in 1944 it was further amended to allow 25% of the funds