I would say this article by Milwaukee Journal Sentinal is similar to the shish-kabob structure in the way that it has a beginning idea, then multiple fact blocks, and then ends with the same idea it began with.
The reporter begins by hooking in readers by stating how bad the student debt is. Next the reporter recaps the results of the rankings and attributes the information to PayScale and the Princeton Review. These elements are important because they show clarity and credibility. After summarizing the entire study, the reporter focuses on University of Wisconsin-Madison's ratings. This is important because it brings the focus in locally. The Reporter then continues by discussing how other Wisconsin schools fell into the PayScale rankings. This is important because it discusses how Wisconsin's private schools are also ranking well. Next, it wraps up the article by using a quote about how one of the schools mentioned is happy with the results of the study because it shows that his students will feel a lesser blow when it comes to student debt. This comment brings the story around full circle.
The way this is structured seems effective. It shows how the rankings apply in general, and then becomes more and more specific. The story could have been done in a way that immediately talked about how Wisconsin school ranks, and then continued to discuss the generals of the study. That would've been more of a Wisconsin focused article, and would've been more applicable to the Journal Sentinel Readers.