No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Griffith University, 2003. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on May 5, 2005). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M. Hous. M.)--University of Hong Kong, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 84-88).

Thesis (M.Hous.M.)--University of Hong Kong, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 84-88). Also available in print.

This dissertation explores the effects of postwar suburbanization on American Catholicism by studying the dioceses of metropolitan New York, especially the creation and expansion of the Diocese of Rockville Centre in suburban Long Island. Throughout the 1960s the Diocese of Rockville Centre was one of the fastest growing Catholic communities in the country and was hailed as the nation’s first suburban diocese and a model for the future of the U.S. Church. The project details how Catholic pastoral leaders grappled with the rapid exodus of the faithful from urban ethnic neighborhoods to newly built suburbs, and how Catholic sociologists and intellectuals assessed the effects of suburbanization. I argue that postwar suburbanization revolutionized the sacred space of the parish, the relationship between clergy and laity, and conceptions of Catholic education. In suburbia the communal life of the ethnic parish yielded to the nuclear family and the home, the dominance of the clergy gave way to lay leadership and initiative, and devotion to parochial schools declined in favor of participation in public education. Suburbanization was thus a crucial catalyst of religious reform even before the Second Vatican Council. Similarly, suburbanization transformed Catholic participation in American politics. The economics of suburbia drove Catholic voters to prioritize tax relief and local control of public schools over the bishops’ demands for state funding of private schools. Suburban Catholics thus contributed to the growth of postwar conservatism and to the development of the culture wars that reconfigured American politics through the 1960s and 70s.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.) -- American University, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 221-258). Also available on the Internet.

The study involved the development and administration of an opinionnaire designed to determine task priorities for public schools. The location for the study was a suburban area; Mount Pleasant Township, Delaware County, Indiana, and the town of Yorktown. The community is served by the Mount Pleasant Township Community School Corporation.Seven identifiable sub-publics within the community were involved in the investigation. They were: adult lay citizens, middle school students in grades six through eight, high school students in grades nine through twelve, middle school teachers, high school teachers, middle and high school administrators, and school board members.The respondents were asked to place fifteen educational task items in priority order. A total of 1,391 individuals took part in the study as follows: 161 adult lay citizens, 573 middle school students, 593 high school students, 23 middle school teachers, 33 high school teachers, 5 administrators and 3 school board members.The fifteen task items were grouped into four major classifications: Intellectual - ability to employ the basic tools of knowledge, ability to make decisions after considering all aspects of a problem, desire for further education and the ability to continue learning in the future, and creativity. Social - ability to get along with others, sense of civic responsibility and understanding of governmental processes, patriotism and loyalty to the United States, and understanding of the need for a clean environment. Personal - understanding of personal hygiene, good mental health, development of moral behavior, and participation in cultural activities. Productive - specialized vocational training and job preparation, and management and financial abilities for living.The analysis of data involved multiplying the number of responses favoring an item by the number of that rank, thus obtaining a weighted value. The weighted totals were ranked in descending order, thereby establishing a rank order according to priority.Respondents ranked their choices within three major categories: Most Important, Important, and Least Important.Findings of the study were as follows:Adult Lay Citizens.-- Ranked Intellectual Elements Most Important. The Personal Elements were considered to be Important while Social Elements were considered as Least Important tasks of public education.Middle School Students.-- Placed Intellectual Elements in the Most Important group. Personal Elements were ranked high in the Important classification. Little interest in the Social Elements was indicated.High School Students.-- The most Important category included Social, Personal, and Intellectual items. ProductiveElements were divided between Important and Least Important. The Personal Elements were ranked as Least Important.Middle School Teachers.-- Ranked Intellectual Elements Most Important. Social Elements were Important, and the Personal Elements were ranked as Least Important.Hiqh School Teachers.-- Social Elements ranked as Most Important and Important. Intellectual Elements were scattered throughout the ranking. Personal Elements were ranked low.School Administrators.-- Ranked Social and Personal Elements as Most Important or Important. Productive Elements were Important to this group. Intellectual Elements were ranked in all three major classifications.School Board.-- Ranked Social and Personal Elements in the Most Important group. Intellectual Elements were in the Important classification, and productive Elements ranked low.The respondents displayed a high level of agreement concerning public school tasks. It was concluded from the study that Intellectual Elements were the most important tasks of the public schools even though the total pattern was comprehensive. Administrators differed in their perceptions concerning educational priorities from other groups. Vocational tasks were not considered important to the respondents. Tasks dealing with aesthetic values and creativity were ranked very low in the priorities.