It says
the complaint offers a devastating analysis of the two-and-a-half-hour multiple-choice test, which, among other flaws, fails to reflect the curriculum taught at many middle schools. The test also heavily favors those who can afford extensive tutoring and has not been shown to be a good predictor of student performance in high school.
If such a complaint is well-founded, then sueing doesn't seem an unreasonable response. Have you looked at this "devastating analysis"?
The summary of the complaint and the full complaint are available here:
http://www.naacpldf.org/press-relea...and-center-law-and-social-justice-medgarhttp://www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/Specialized%20High%20Schools%20Complaint.pdfThe gist of the complaint seems to be that there is no "equality of outcome", and therefore the test must be invalid. I don't buy into the assertion that the difference is due to pricey test prep in richer households. I remember reading somewhere that over 40% of Stuyvesant students receive free or reduced priced lunches.
In other posts, I have mentioned that we have not accelerated our kids, in part because we are fortunate enough to live in a town with an outstanding public school system. We do not live in New York, but schools like Stuy offer the opportunity for highly intelligent children to learn together in a single school. And they do this without the cost of an expensive private school education, or having to live in expensive towns that are closely associated with most of the excellent public schools.
