Summary of Problem and Methodology The purpose of this study was to investigate and analyze the approaches used, adopted, or contemplated by ten selected urban school systems during the past seven years, 1974-1981, and with regards to their plans for reducing such personnel in the future. More specifically, this study will address the following research questions: 1.What were the top three major factors that led to the decision to reduce or seriously consider re�ducing personnel in these systems? 2.Was the decision or mandate to reduce or seriously consider the reduction in personnel an administra�tive one, or decided by an appointed or elected governing body?. 3.How and who developed or selected the approaches used, adopted or contemplated for reduction of personnel in these systems? 4.What procedures were followed to officially endorse the approaches that were used, adopted or con�templated for reduction of personnel in their systems? 5.What are the features of these approaches to RIF Policies that were widely accepted by the entire system or by personnel? 6.What were the features of these approaches to RIF Policies that were challenged legally? 7.Does a person�s job position, level of seniority, educational background, sex, race, or age signifi�cantly affect how he/she will respond to various aspects of the RIF policy of their local school system. The Population and Procedure The population consisted of twenty-eight school districts that are members of the Council of Great City Schools. The Council is an educational organization representing the largest urban school systems in the country. Wherein all members of the Council were contacted initially, the study was conducted only on the basis that at least 30 percent agreed to participate. Information obtained about these systems was sought from specific types of individuals from each of the ten participating school systems. Three supervisory persons, nine classroom teachers and nine principals were randomly identified and were sent a RIF Questionnaire. In addition, personal interviews were conducted with superintendents and two board members for seven of the ten school systems included in this study. Summary of Findings According to the respondents, the findings resulting from this study are as follows: 1.All participating school systems have either developed a RIF policy or are governed by union contracts or state statutes. In each case, with one exception, seniority is the method by which staff reduction takes place. 2.Declining enrollment, fiscal demands and overhiring were identified by teachers, principals and supervisory persons as the three major factors that led to reduction in personnel. Superintendents and board members supported these listings but identified politics as a third major factor. 3.The most predominant methods by which decisions were made to implement a RIF policy were by the board or a select committee with little or no input from classroom teachers. 4. Teachers, principals and supervisors were very similar in their perceptions relative to the fairness of their RIF policy. 5.Rating of qualification by training, affirmative action, observed performance and competency rating were factors listed as having been legally challenged. 6.Although sex, race, age, seniority, and educational background were variables to be considered, job position appeared to be the only variable which played a significant role in the manner in which a person responded to items concerning certain aspects of the local school system�s RIF policy. Conclusions The conclusions of this study have been drawn upon responses from categorical employees within each participating school system and how these respondents view the practiced RIF approach, policy or plan developed by their respective school systems. Based on the aforementioned findings, the following conclusions may be drawn: 1.Although a statistical significant difference did not exist among the groups regarding official involvement, a higher percentage of employees with less than ten years of seniority have been officially involved with RIF plans than those with more years of experience. Consequently, the position of the person seems to determine how the RIF policy was regarded. The higher the position, the more positive were the responses. 2.The apparent lack of support and the skepticism on the part of teachers can be attributed to the fact that their level of official involvement in the development of the RIF policy was limited. 3.It appears that the decision to develop a RIF policy was due primarily because of declining enrollment, fiscal demands and over-hiring. 4.Seniority and attrition appear to be the most prevalent considerations of school systems when faced with the decision to reduce staff. 5.It is evident that none of the participating school systems have developed a comprehensive, equitable approach to reduce personnel that is suitable to all situations. Recommendations In view of the fact that the problem investigated in this study is germane to all school systems, especially urban school systems faced with the potential of drastic cuts, it is recommended that: 1.School systems seek to include a cross representation of all role groups by job position during the planning, development, and implementation stages of the RIF policy. 2.Research be conducted to examine the impact of RIF on such factors as affirmative action, competency rating, observed performance and rating of job qualification. 3.Alternative models be identified which include factors other than seniority and examine their rate of success. 4.A future study be conducted to investigate the possibility for a more equitable approach to RIF with consideration being given to personnel as well as to program. 5.School systems update and maintain demographic information to facilitate enrollment forecasting in order to more effectively and efficiently accommodate changes dictated by the decline in pupil population. 6.This study be replicated focusing on job satisfaction and employee morale as controlling factors
