Clinton, MA: Why are schools *so* bad? (Boston, Worcester: environment, estate)

[mdp22]

My fiancee and I are looking at a nice place in Clinton. But the stats for the schools are just dreadful. Average SAT score less than 900. Elementary students < 50% proficient in reading. One site said Clinton was below the 20th percentile for the state.

We're also looking at places in Hudson (I work there and currently live there; been here about a year after moving from the midwest). Hudson is no Northborough, but the schools at least don't seem dreadful. What's wrong with Clinton? Usually schools this bad are a sign of other problems that indicate a bad neighborhood. Crime, drugs, poverty, welfare, unemployment?

I'm puzzled because the other stats don't look too bad. Median income isn't sky high but isn't terrible. What's the catch with this town? Is it going uphill or downhill?

If we had kids, I don't think I could put them in a school this bad. But I'm even concerned about resale these stats are so bad. They almost look like an inner city--Boston or Worcester.

I saw this previous thread on Clinton, but it didn't really seem to cover my questions. Thanks in advance.

Clinton, MA--any info would be great!

[LovelyBoston]

Clinton has never been exactly a vibrant town. You're right to be concerned -- they are bad enough that resale values will be bad. There is actually a fairly sizable low income population there, given the small size of the town. With poverty and an almost total lack of businesses in the community, it does not have a great tax base for its schools. It is too far away to commute to Boston, and for commuting to Worcester there are far nicer towns that are even easier to commute from. So I think it is not a smart buy. Your house would not appreciate much over the years. Even if you wanted to move before kids and schools were an issue, you'd have some trouble selling.

Hudson is better, but honestly resale will be tough there, too. It's just that there are other towns nearby that are better options for families, so more people will be looking to buy elsewhere. Have you looked at Berlin, Boylston, or Stow? I know those are more expensive towns, but they're better investments and still easy for commuting to Hudson.

[smarty]

My theory/rule about buying a house:

1. Never buy the most expensive house (or top 10-20%) in town.
You will be paying the most in property tax in a not so good town.

2. Always look to buy the lowest 15-25% in a town that you can afford.
If prices go up, houses in a good town will go up first.
If prices go down, houses in a good town go down last. At the bottom 15-25% range, houses usually do not drop much.
You will pay less taxes; expensive house take higher tax burden.
You can always sell easily.
It is not likely to be a handy man special (usually bottom 5-10% are).

For example, if you want to buy a $800K house, I would buy in Weston rather than Waltham.

Scores are low because the average education level of parents are low and they have lower income. (those two parameters always correlate with test scores.) It is not one of the areas you can get to easily via major high ways (like Marlborough or Hudson.) The town has as many bars as there are churches. However, due to prices in surrounding towns, many people are looking into it. (Again, it feeds into my theory, people that can afford it will look into other towns first; only if they cannot afford it, would they consider Clinton.)

[SuperGrover]

I lived in Clinton for a few years. Clinton is poor, and convenient to very little except the Solomon Pond Mall. That being said, I loved living there. Traffic is minimal off of Main St, and the nearby resevoir land is fantastic for walking and biking. Think poor "not much local business", not poor "is somebody going to steal my radio". I never had any trouble, or even saw any trouble. One downer is the Wheatabix plant. Sometimes it cranks out a stink that knocks unsuspecting songbirds out of the air.

On the "worst house in the best neighborhood" mantra, thats all well and good for a single guy, but not fun with a family. I'll pay some extra taxes to have an extra room, insulation in the walls, closetspace and a garage that can fit a car or two. Why dodge the tax man for a few dollars a day at the cost of dissatisfaction every day. I want to live in the median house or better.

[Eddy G]

I spent some time in Clinton and found it a nice enough place but like others have said the surrounding towns are much much nicer.

Back in the old days Clinton was a manufacturing town and if you drive around closer to town you will see a lot of multiple family houses. Right in the center of town is a large apartment building called Oxford Court.

After the manufacturing jobs went away so did a lot of people. Then when the government closed Fort Devens near by a lot more people went away.

That left a lot of empty apartments. So to fill them landlords brought in a lot of section 8 type of tenant's. Mostly from the Worcester area but from all over. Rents are or were cheep because there was a lot to choose from.

The next thing you know theres a check cashing place on the corner.

[Lisa_from_Debary]

I am 40 and I grew up in the area, Clinton has always had a bad reputation. I wouldn't buy a house there for anything...I can only imagine what the schools are like there now.

RUN...don't walk away from this place.

My. Dad used to say that Clinton had the most bars per capita then any other town he had seen...probably not a scientific fact but based on the bar fights we would see spilling out onto the streets

[Clintonian]

It's a good value for Mass 300 K will buy you a nice home. It has it's rough areas mostly old apt's. However, it is a safe town to live in and has little real city type crime. The schools are average but you can school choice to another school and they have a Catholic Grade School in town.

I raised a family in town and would not want to live in any other town in this area.

[JoeGr]

Resale value? Every community is having that problem in our current market.
City like crime in Clinton? I've examined the police logs of both Clinton and Hudson.......they have vary similiar crime stats. Murders and rapes are rare, and per capita crime is low compared to real "cities" like Worcester and Boston. Like many towns, Clinton does have poorer sections. Comparing Clinton to communities like Berlin, Stow, Boylston etc. is comparing apples to oranges. Thoes other communities are much smaller in pop. and larger geographically. Unlike Clinton, they do not have full time police or fire, nor do they have town supported water and sewer throughout their communities. You get what you pay for (as far as community services) in terms of re-estate taxes. Most homes (Berlin-Stow-Boylston-Lancaster-Sterling, not Hudson) in the surrounding communities are more spred out and expensive, and do not have close-nit neighborhoods. The town does have things the smaller communities around it do not, such as a theater, multiple restauraunts, pharmacies, an active Parks and Recreation dept. to name just a few. Go to http://clintonmass.com/ and check it out for yourselves. I grew-up in Clinton but moved out when I married. I bought my first home after marriage in Fitchburg......THAT is a "city" with real "city" problems. Eleven years later I sold and returned to Clinton (3 kids in tow). That was 8 years ago.......and a move I will never regret.

[SP2]

Although my wife and I can afford to live in many other places, we moved to Clinton quite by choice. It is still a "town"-that is, a place where a diverse group of people can live, work, worship, obtain goods and services, partake of cultural enjoyments, and participate in community life. It is a town where a high quality of life is available to people across a broad spectrum of means. While the community has been undercapitalized for most of the last 75 years, it is a physically beautiful town, with a number of remarkable buildings and public spaces. It is a place on the cusp of change.

If you look more closely at the Clinton schools, you will see they are not terrible. Each spring, the Boston Globe follows its publication of the raw MCAS data with an adjusted ranking of district performance-that is, they weigh district scores in consideration of district demographics. By this reckoning, Clinton schools have been anywhere from second-best to sixth-best in the Commonwealth. The districts raw SAT scores are somewhat depressed by the number of students in the district who are encouraged to take the SAT. In the last year for which numbers are available, the number of students in Clinton who took the SAT(which is optional) was 84% the number of students who took the 10th-grade MCAS(which is mandatory). Compare this to Hudson, where the ratio is 56%. In a cohort comparison, only Milford does better.

When my wife and I moved to Clinton, we too had concerns about the schools. The conceit we held at the time was, so long as we are the custodians of their intellectual development, that they will be better prepared for living in the twenty-first century for having been raised in an environment where not everyone has the same expectations out of life. So far, so good. And if we decide we're wrong, the options include parochial school(there is one-St Mary's, in Clinton, then excellent high schools in St John's in Shrewsbury or St Peter Marian's in Worcester), school choice(we are surrounded by high-performing districts like Nashoba and Bromfield), and charter schools(including the Abbey Foster Kelly in Worcester, the Francis Parker at Devens, and the Mass. Academy of Mathematics and Science in Marlborough- I know families from Clinton who send their kids to each place I have mentioned).

You've probably already made your decision by now, but if not, take another look at Clinton. It's a different kind of place, and I am grateful that it is.

[0ld Clintonion]

Hi everybody, I was born and raised on the Acre. My family lived 3 generations in Clinton. I have such fond memories but have lost contact with everyone .I don't know where exactly to post if I just want to chat. I now live in Fredericksburg Va.