But contrary to the myth that Guggenheim propounds about “amazing results,” even Geoffrey Canada’s schools have many students who are not proficient. On the 2010 state tests, 60 percent of the fourth-grade students in one of his charter schools were not proficient in reading, nor were 50 percent in the other. It should be noted—and Guggenheim didn’t note it—that Canada kicked out his entire first class of middle school students when they didn’t get good enough test scores to satisfy his board of trustees. This sad event was documented by Paul Tough in his laudatory account of Canada’s Har- lem Children’s Zone, Whatever It Takes (2009). Contrary to Guggenheim’s mythology, even the best-funded charters, with the finest services, can’t completely negate the effects of poverty.
One might salvage the author's point by saying that it's simply arguing that charters aren't a cure-all; that the disciplinary problems that sabotaged that middle school class are going to exist for any charter, &c.
That's a huge oversimplification. Canada's intention was always to use his baby college as a pipeline to feed into his school system. He tried accepting older kids who hadn't gone through the baby college, but found that many had severe discipline problems and IIRC he was also having some major staffing problems. So he decided to kill off the grade while he reorganized his staff, mainly on the theory that he needed to start with younger kids in order for the program to work. Anyway I'm in no way defending KIPP or Canada as a whole, but I also think this critique isn't entirely intellectually honest.