 The Court therefore held that the statutory scheme to discharge the state's constitutional duty to educate its children, which depended primarily on a local property tax base without regard to the disparity in the towns' ability to finance an educational program and with no significant equalizing state support, was not "appropriate legislation" as required by Article Eighth of the state constitution.The Court determined that the legislation did not implement the constitutional requirement that the state provide a substantially equal educational opportunity to the youth in its free public schools.As a judicial body, the Court noted, its duty was to interpret the law.