No it doesn’t. 
Among the dramatic claims of “x months of additional learning growth,” I felt there was an underlying sense of “Methinks they doth protest too much”: “KIPP’s gains are not the result of ‘teaching to the test.’”
And while KIPP benefits regardless of how accurate the report is about their accomplishments—because KIPP and other “choice” charters are compelled to pursue branding and the media will report often and inaccurately based on the Mathematica press release and almost none at all on the reviews to follow—I have stated repeatedly that the outcomes and data-fetish surrounding KIPP cannot justify for me the “no excuses” policies that also characterized the charter chain.
“No excuses” policies are often called a “new” paternalism, as David Whitman explains in an article praising “no excuses” schools in Education Next:
By paternalistic I mean that each of the six schools is a highly prescriptive institution that teaches students not just how to think, but also how to act according to what are commonly termed traditional, middle-class values. These paternalistic schools go beyond just teaching values as abstractions: the schools tell students exactly how they are expected to behave, and their behavior is closely monitored, with real rewards for compliance and penalties for noncompliance….But many paternalistic programs remain controversial because they seek to change the lifestyles of the poor, immigrants, and minorities, rather than the lifestyles of middle-class and upper-class families. The paternalistic presumption implicit in the schools is that the poor lack the family and community support, cultural capital, and personal follow-through to live according to the middle-class values that they, too, espouse.
The numbers and statistics (inane claims such as “months of learning growth” that are as pointless as identifying a book as being on the 4th-grade reading level) used to justify and praise KIPP charters are as accurate a portrayal of what happens to the students, parents, and teachers involved with those schools as Game of Thrones is realistic, with its inordinate amount of clean white teeth and topless women that make the airbrushing in Playboy seem rather shoddy.
I am more compelled by the stories drawn from KIPP and other “no excuses” charters in New Orleans as portrayed in Sarah Carr’s Hope Against Hope, notably one comment included in that book from principal Mary Laurie:
“I think we’ve done good work, but I don’t know that the numbers (test scores, attendance and graduation rates) will always reflect our good work because of the kids we take on,” said Laurie, referring to the fact that the school accepts some of the city’s most challenged and challenging students….“Walker’s a twenty-four-seven school. We believe we’ve got to find a way to give kids a safe place to be,” Laurie said. “And that’s not spoken for in these numbers.”
I believe Laurie’s concern is the comment of our time related to how we misunderstand and misrepresent every aspect of schooling because we keep the political and public gaze on the numbers and not the people involved.
We have become a people obsessed with the ends justifying the means when those means involve the least among us, specifically children, and disturbingly when the means impact children of color living in impoverished homes and communities.
And I also remain troubled that KIPP along with other highly segregated “no excuses” charter schools and Teach for America are tolerated and even empowered to flourish because they are experimentations with “other people’s children,” again mostly of color and mostly from poverty.
It is easy now to look back at something like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and feel horror and disgust because of the dramatic details but also because of the luxury of this seemingly being something of our dark naive past.
And is also easy to focus on the inexcusable details of Tuskegee or to assume that prisoners are somehow less than human , thus deserve indignity, and fail to recognize that “missionary zeal,”  deficit views of certain people, and an “ends justify the means” mentality all lurked beneath decisions to perform medical experiments on those prisoners.
But it is often much harder to pull back the veil when the details are contemporary and not nearly so dramatic.
A “missionary zeal,” deficit views of impoverished children and their families, and an “ends justify the means” mentality characterize KIPP and TFA, and thus, I am cautioned, I am concerned, I am deeply skeptical.
Because of the Mathematica report, KIPP will be announced as doing something many have refuted: Succeeding with high-poverty students.
While that may prove to be technically true (although I doubt that), few if any will note that KIPP has achieved those results through advantages that do not exist in public schools and have been categorically rejected by the exact same people who will praise KIPP—much higher levels of per-pupil expenditures, lower class sizes, higher teacher compensation for more experience and qualifications (see Bruce Baker). Not to mention selectivity, attrition, under-serving ELL and special needs students, options public schools do not, and should not, have.
And those advantages of KIPP, not their “no excuses” policies, may very well be at the core of why they have raised test scores. But who will examine that? Who will ask that? Who will report that?
What remains most disturbing of all, however, is that almost nothing will be said about the inherent classism and racism running through how KIPP functions and why KIPP is so widely embraced.
Those of us who do ask these hard questions are likely to be attacked instead.
While I expect and welcome more lucid discussions of what KIPP has achieved, I believe above all else we must have a frank discussion of how that has been achieved. Or as Elaine would prefer, let’s discuss how KIPP achieves the scores they do!
 If you assume that criminals and crimes are obvious, read The Reader.