What is it with some who seem to think that old buildings equal poor education? I saw President Obama talking about a school building in South Carolina that was built in the 1850’s as if the age of the building alone caused educational impairment. Do old bricks and mortar somehow absorb educational substance? Do they discharge some undetectable compound that prevents learning? The obvious answer is no yet some cling to the idea that how much we value our children can be measured by how much we spend on their education. So how much is enough? To those who think that way there seems to be no limit.
.
The administrator says they have “no plans to come to voters with another project in the near future”. No formal plans perhaps, but they will be back. Just as nearly every other school district in this state has shown, persistence pays off, eventually.

The school may need the improvements but they don't look like urgent needs. The villagers already have too many tax burdens not to mention the economic crisis to worry about. It seems to me that we can hold off a few years to see where we are then.

The vote shows that taxpayers are hesitant to support big government projects at this time. This should be a warning to liberal Democrats, Governor Doyle, and President Obama. Yes, they won the election and the right to govern - but big spending could be their downfall and the honeymoon period quite short.

"you do have to have a climate controlled and safe environment.. for all kids and teachers."

Yes, its right there next to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to climate controlled classrooms. Since the earliest one room schoolhouses, climate control was mandatory. We could have never won two world wars if our soldiers had not been educated in climate controlled classrooms. The scientists who desined the technology to put men on the moon would have had brains of mush if they had not been educated in air conditioned buildings.

This was a major victory for the taxpayer, and I'm proud that the majority of people in our community said 'no' to this costly referendum. To try to push through the exact same referendum which failed 3 months ago during a recession is the height of arrogance. I don't disagree that the elem. school needs a new heating system, so let's fix that first, pay for it, then make other improvements as we can afford it (that's what I have to do in my own household). At least I know I'll be able to afford my property for another year.

I agree wiht many of the comments,however, think some poeple are morons. Come walk thru the elementary school in Clinton... it needs many updates and has serious space issues. The high school may look like a show palace, however, it was necessary and taxes did not increase that much AND it was completed under budget. Recently all homes in Clinton were reassed, and while VERY few taxes may have gone up, many homeowners went down. The overall increase would not be that much- a very small price to pay for tomorrows leaders! Lastly, you are right, you dont have to have a "pretty" looking school to learn, however.. you do have to have a climate controlled and safe environment.. for all kids and teachers.

A school doesn't have to look pretty for children to learn,put wood burning stoves back in the classrooms,good enough for us in our days,good enough for these kids!!

It's about time that a community finally stood up and said enough spending. Other communities should learn their lesson from the reasonable voters of Clinton. Have you been in the Clinton High school? It's like the Taj Mahal. Maybe they could have spared some of the extras that building has to help the middle school. BTW, I'm sure the education system will survive without improved drop of areas.

fuuzball --

So you're saying the majority of the funding of the multi-million dollar referendum that was approved to build Clinton's new high school was ACTUALLY directed toward improvements in the elementary school? That doesn't make any sense...When was the last time upgrades to an existing school cost MORE than building a COMPLETELY NEW one?
Let us also not forget one of the reasons why the new high school was of such urgent need: the existing one was gradually sinking in the soft, marshy land that had been its location since 1957 -- precisely why it makes sense to move grades 6-8 over there, and proclaim that as the new junior high.

Perhaps the planners of the last referendum should have incorporated a little financial forsight into the possible engineering pitfalls that have ensued and lingered as addressed in your comment.
As far as the issue of parents ignoring handicapped parking spaces, and the endangerment of students and crossing-guards with careless/reckless driving...those ignorant parents and irresponsible drivers elect to be that way -- $9.63 million cannot change that.
However, I wouldn't be adverse to a few signs that read 'Slow...Children' and 'Reserved..Handicapped Parking' (with a fine for violators). I would like to think the Clinton Schools already have such signs, but it doesn't hurt to stock up a little.
For roughly $1000, you can get yourself approximately 10 12"x 24" signs with a hefty 8' post. And with a little luck, those signs could last 7-8 years, or more.

Cheers -

While I realize that we are in hard economic times and it may seem impractical to spend $9.63 million dollars, it's disappointing to see that the people of Clinton are so disinterested in the welfare of children. Granted, it was not so long ago that the multimillion dollar high school was built, but people who carefully read the referendum proposal saw that the majority of the funding was to go towards improving the outdated elementary school where some of the rooms do not have proper heating and still others have leaky roofs. An environment such as this is hardly conducive to learning and indeed poses a threat to the health of both students and teachers. The referendum also proposed changes which would improve the safety of students while they are being dropped off and picked up from school. Currently, many parents ignore handicapped spaces and endanger both students and crossing-guards with careless and reckless driving. However, it would seem that a majority of the voters in Clinton chose to ignore these dangers and instead decided to think of what the referendum would cost them rather than what it would cost the children.