Many KIPP schools are better than most urban schools because they alleviate more of the burdens of poverty. There should be more such schools.
But KIPP is able to alleviate many of poverty's burdens in large part precisely because it has the support of, as I wrote, committed parents, students, and staffs. Sure, we want more schools like KIPP. But we have to realize that there are, for example, only so many teachers who will work 12-hour days, be on-call until 9 p.m., and willingly accept a measly salary for their efforts. KIPP's brand of paternalism is the right kind--one that surrounds students with a high-achieving culture--and other schools would do well to adopt parts of it. But to embrace educational paternalism, history suggests, is to embrace the creation and spread of lousy programs (e.g., Head Start) that are a waste. At the national level, the concept will be corrupted and money wasted.
Coby's last point is right, but only on a small scale:
But ultimately, I'd argue, the level of paternalism a school offers its students should be left to the school to decide, and parents can decide whether or not to send their kids there.
Update: Another, perhaps simpler way of saying this is that KIPP doesn't buff out poverty's deepest dents and doesn't try to. Students who come to KIPP already have those dents buffed out; they and their parents are already in a positition that allows KIPP's incentives to work. If not, they'll leave or be kicked out.