State v. Express Co., 60 N.H. 219, 243 (1880) (Stanley, J.) (emphasis added). We find the purpose of the school tax to be overwhelmingly a State purpose and dispositive of the issue of the character of the tax.

"[T]he local school district, an entity created by the legislature almost two centuries ago, exists for the public's benefit, to carry out the mandates of the State's education laws." Opinion of the Attorney General, No. 82-100-I (Sept. 8, 1982) (citation omitted). "Indeed, school district monies, a public trust, can only be spent in furtherance of these educational mandates, and to promote the values set forth in the `Encouragement of Literature' clause, N.H. CONST., pt. 2, Art. 83." Id. As we held in Claremont I, "part II, article 83 imposes a duty on the State to provide a constitutionally adequate education to every educable child in the public schools in New Hampshire and to guarantee adequate funding." Claremont I, 138 N.H. at 184, 635 A.2d at 1376.

Providing an adequate education is thus a duty of State government expressly created by the State's highest governing document, the State Constitution. In addition, public education differs from all other services of the State. No other governmental service plays such a seminal role in developing and maintaining a citizenry capable of furthering the economic, political, and social viability of the State. Only in part II, article 83 is it declared a duty of the legislature to "cherish" a service mandated by the State Constitution. See Claremont I, 138 N.H. at 187, 635 A.2d at 1378 (duty to cherish commands that State support all public schools). Furthermore, education is a State governmental service that is compulsory. See RSA 193:1 (Supp. 1996). That the State, through a complex statutory framework, has shifted most of the responsibility for supporting public schools to local school districts does not diminish the State purpose of the school tax. Although the taxes levied by local school districts are local in the sense that they are levied upon property within the district, the taxes are in fact State taxes that have been authorized by the legislature to fulfill the requirements of the New Hampshire Constitution. See Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 220 n.1 (Ky. 1989) (Vance, J., dissenting); Opinion of the Justices, 88 N.H. 500, 508, 190 A. 801, 807 (1937) (distinguishing tax revenue to meet State needs from tax revenue for strictly local needs). "The taxes imposed by the legislature for the support of schools . . . are, in their nature, state taxes . . . ." Opinion, 4 N.H. 565, 571 (1829). Consequently, "[t]here is abundant justification in fact for taking this property out of the class taxed locally, and taxing it at the average rate throughout the state." Opinion of the Justices, 84 N.H. 559, 566, 149 A. 321, 325 (1930). For purposes of analysis under part II, article 5, therefore, the taxing district is the State.

The question then is whether the school tax as presently structured is proportional and reasonable throughout the State in accordance with the requirements of part II, article 5. Evidence introduced at trial established that the equalized tax rate for the 1994-1995 school year in Pittsfield was $25.26 per thousand while the rate in Moultonborough was $5.56 per thousand. The tax rate in Pittsfield, therefore, was more than four times, or over 400 percent, higher than in Moultonborough. Likewise, the equalized tax rate for the 1994-1995 school year in Allenstown was $26.47 per thousand while the rate in Rye was $6.86 per thousand -- a difference in tax rates of almost 400 percent. We need look no further to hold that the school tax is disproportionate in violation of our State Constitution. Indeed, the trial court acknowledged that the plaintiffs "presented evidence that the school tax may be disproportionate if it is a state tax."