To begin with, the issue decided by the trial court, is that the system of common schools of the Commonwealth is not efficient, and is not constitutionally valid. The trial court set out numerous standards by which an "efficient system" can be judged. We do the same. The trial court emphasized and re-emphasized, in its three documents, that it was not directing the General Assembly to enact specific legislation and that it was not directing the General Assembly to raise taxes. We do the same. The impact of this decision that the system is constitutionally deficient will be to set certain standards that we believe are required by Section 183 for the establishment and maintenance of an efficient system of common schools. It will be the responsibility of the General Assembly, using its own judgment and exercising its own power and constitutional duty, to establish such a system. Further, the trial court required these two appellants to, in effect, introduce legislation to correct the constitutional defect. We do not agree with the trial court here, and we do not so order the two legislator-appellants. We do not agree that, in order to bring the Kentucky General Assembly within the jurisdiction of a court, a plaintiff must effect service upon all of the individual members thereof. While we have no Kentucky authority directly on point, we do recognize a line of cases holding that members of lesser administrative and legislative bodies must be named individually as parties-defendant in order to invoke a trial court's jurisdiction. In Lewis v. Board of Councilmen Of Frankfort, 305 Ky. 509, 204 S.W.2d 813 (1947), for example, the court affirmed the dismissal of an action for a writ of mandamus. The plaintiff failed to name individual members of the Frankfort Board of Councilmen in the complaint; thus the court determined that the Board was not properly before the court. The court was concerned with affected parties' ability to defend themselves and the court's power to enforce a writ, if granted. While it is certainly true that the named appellants in the instant case cannot, by themselves, enact any legislation, they can defend the constitutionality of an act or acts. They have done so in this case. Furthermore, the trial court did not issue a writ of mandamus and appellants were not ordered to enact specific legislation, but to "proceed as rapidly as possible to establish an efficient system of elementary and secondary public schools within the guidelines laid down...." The two appellants in this case are the elected leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the Complaint, they are described as follows. "Defendant, Joseph W. Prather, is President Pro Tempore of Kentucky's Senate. Defendant, Donald J. Blandford, is Speaker of Kentucky's House of Representatives. Those defendants are the presiding officers and are representative of their respective legislative bodies. They are named in their official capacities as President Pro Tempore of the Kentucky Senate and Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives, respectively." (emphasis added). While the legislative leaders are not named as official representatives of the General Assembly in the caption of the complaint, as they should have been, it is clear from the statement of parties contained within the complaint that appellants were in fact named in a representative capacity that is sufficient to indicate the capacity in which they were being sued. See Beverly v. Highfield, 307 Ky. 179, 209 S.W.2d 739, 741 (1948). We are also persuaded by authority from other jurisdictions that further obviates the need for serving all members of a legislative body. In Seattle School District No. 1 of King County v. State, 90 Wash.2d 476, 585 P.2d 71 (1978) the Speaker of the House of Representatives was named as a defendant representing all members of the House and the President of the state Senate was likewise named as a defendant representing the entire Senate. In Barkely v. O'Neill, 624 F.Supp. 664 (S.D.Ind.,