Chicago still has a long way to go. Its math and reading scores remain below the national average, for example. But its recent progress is exciting, especially given the city’s diverse population and relatively high poverty rate.

The city’s students “appear to be learning faster than those in almost every other school system in the country, according to new data from researchers at Stanford,” Emily Badger and Kevin Quealy of The Times recently wrote.

In The Washington Post last week, Karin Chenoweth wrote, “If we as a country are really serious about wanting to improve schools and education, we should be studying Chicago.”

The gains haven’t come easily, though. They have involved, among other things, greater accountability for school leaders and the closure of some underperforming schools. In a Times op-ed today, Tamar Manasseh makes the case against the next round of Chicago’s school closures, calling previous ones “a fiasco.”

I disagree. For too long, school systems have been unwilling to crack down on failing schools. As traumatic as closures can be, they can lead to real progress, as has happened in Chicago. In most other parts of society, after all, institutions aren’t allowed to fail year after year, without consequence.

For more on Chicago, I wrote about its schools last year, focusing on the role that principals have played. You can also read the Stanford University study. And The Chicago Tribune explained the latest development yesterday: a three-year phaseout, rather than a 2018 closing, for three high schools.

As usual, I encourage you to read both sides of the debate.

Follow up. Lucas Dolan of American University responded to my column about Trumpism-for-thee-and-not-for-me by noting on Twitter that populist demagogues in other countries have followed a similar pattern. They’ve exempted their own supporters from their policy agenda.