The Relationship between the School as a Learning Organisation and Teacher Job Satisfaction in General Education in Latvia

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between the school as a learning organisation (SLO) and teacher job satisfaction in general education in Latvia. This study also examined teacher job satisfaction depending on the school type (primary, elementary and secondary school), school size, the geographical location of the school, the teacher’s work experience, the teacher’s workload and whether the teacher’s has one or more jobs. A structured questionnaire on the eight dimensions of the Latvian SLO model was used, which was developed within the project, “A model and tool to support the implementation of the approach school as a learning organisation in educational institutions”. The study sample included 478 teachers from 62 general educational institutions in Latvia. A significant relationship was found between all SLO dimensions and teacher job satisfaction in general education in Latvia. A significant relationship was not found between teacher job satisfaction and the school type, the school size, the geographical location of the school and the teacher’s work experience and workload; however, the data reveal that teachers who have almost full-time or full-time employment at school and those who work in only one school are more satisfied with their work.

1. Introduction

1.1. School as a Learning Organisation

The transformation of educational institutions into learning organisations promotes diverse learning opportunities, improves the learning environment and diversifies teaching approaches for students and school staff, both within the educational institution and in collaboration with other organisations [1]. As a result, schools become organisations with a high level of professional competence in management, teaching and academic staff; strategic operational vision; responsibility and autonomy [2,3]. They implement more effective cooperation between employees and management of financial and professional resources, and the transfer of knowledge and good practices is implemented more successfully.

Several SLO models have been developed around the world, the best known of which is the OECD Wales model, which includes seven dimensions: developing and sharing a vision centred on the learning of all students; creating and supporting continuous learning opportunities for all staff; promoting team learning and collaboration among all staff; establishing a culture of inquiry, innovation and exploration; embedding systems for collecting and exchanging knowledge and learning; learning with and from the external environment and larger learning system; and modelling and growing learning leadership [4,5,6,7].

At the level of education systems, the features of the SLO approach can be seen in the Singapore School Excellence Model [8,9], and the SLO approach is being introduced in the national education system in Greece, with particular attention being paid to such SLO characteristics as learning analytics [10,11]. The SLO approach can be found in the education systems of Portugal, Denmark, Finland and other countries [5,12,13].

The SLO approach has also been introduced in the education system in Latvia, as it is embedded in the refined competence-based curriculum [14,15]. Learning organisation indicators, such as continuous professional development of staff, learning from the external environment, developing systems of knowledge accumulation and collaborative teamwork in school, are used by the State Education Quality Service [16] to measure the quality of education available in schools and to develop the school self-assessment process in line with the SLO performance indicators.

1.2. Staff Job Satisfaction

Employee job satisfaction in relation to the implementation of learning organisation in the workplace is viewed through the following professional practices: opportunities for continuous learning and professional development; fostering a culture of research and dialogue; collaboration and team learning; systems to identify and share good practice within the organisation; participation in the development of a shared vision; the organisational environment; and strategic management and learning leadership [17].

Employees who are satisfied with their work in an organisation are physically and mentally healthier, experience a higher quality of life, are more motivated and productive [18], and are less likely to be absent from work [19]. This is why job satisfaction also influences employees’ attitudes, loyalty and support for the achievement of the organisation’s common goals [20]. However, the relationship between employee job satisfaction and productivity is not always statistically significant, as it is also influenced by factors such as intrinsic motivation and competition with colleagues [21,22].

Job satisfaction is linked to an employee’s affective and cognitive behaviour regarding specific aspects of their job [23]). Organisations that offer resources to employees and support employees’ learning and continuous professional development provide significant psychological benefits and increase employee job satisfaction [24,25]. Offering regular learning opportunities, combined with the establishment of a learning-promoting system in the organisation and employee empowerment, which are also important elements of learning organisations, contribute to employee job satisfaction in the long term [26,27]. Employee empowerment, employee training and teamwork have significant positive effects on job satisfaction [28,29]. Providing learning opportunities increases an employee’s confidence in their professional competence, enhances job satisfaction [30], as well as motivates them to improve and engage in the achievement of organisational goals [31].

This is also applicable to educational institutions, where teachers who experience greater support at school, which primarily manifests as support and encouragement from school management to engage in decision-making and provision of learning opportunities, experience greater job satisfaction and contribute to the achievement of common goals [32,33]. Teachers who feel more satisfied with their jobs show greater loyalty to their organisation [34]. Therefore, the implementation of the learning organisation in school management practices has the potential to positively influence the job satisfaction of school staff.

1.3. School Staff Job Satisfaction

In educational sciences, the concept of satisfaction is related to the mental, physical and environmental satisfaction that an employee derives from their work. In addition, data show that a teacher who is satisfied with their job provides better support for students and contributes to the achievement of the school’s common goals [35]. This is essential in the context of the learning organisation, where expanding students’ learning experiences and improving their achievements are key goals of the SLO implementation [6]. OECD points out that teacher job satisfaction is reflected in teachers’ professional competence, attitudes and beliefs, professional practices and development activities [36], which can be negatively affected by conditions such as a lack of support, increased stress levels, overwork and professional burnout [37,38], as well as social comparison with other employees [39]. Therefore, the SLO is proposed as an alternative school management model that offers teachers specific mechanisms for professional development, peer learning, professional support, and collaboration at the organisational level while having the potential to enhance job satisfaction.

School staff job satisfaction—which is related to professional fulfilment; self-efficacy; optimism about the future of the profession; participation in school life; personal development relationships with colleagues, students and parents; as well as management support for quality; and performance of daily tasks and innovation—have been identified in research as important preconditions for schools to become learning organisations [6,7,12,32,40,41,42].

A study conducted in Greece underlined the need to change the school principal’s current role in Greece. “The teachers expressed the view that the role of the school heads should be mainly associated with the creation of a work environment that enhances the collaboration with the local community, fosters teamwork, mentoring and teacher participation in decision-making at school level as well as the facilitation of opportunities for teacher training and professional growth and development.” [43] (p. 47–48). In comparison, another study conducted in Greece has concluded that the more an organisation prioritises the creation of an environment that enables employees to learn at work, the higher the employees’ satisfaction with their work [11].

Concern for the job satisfaction of school staff is also a characteristic feature of the Finnish education system. Job satisfaction in Finland is fostered by nurturing features of the SLO approach in the organisation, such as teacher autonomy and freedom and a culture of trust, support and collaboration [12,44]. Another study on the implementation of the SLO principles in Wales (UK) reported that fostering team learning and collaboration among school staff, creating a culture of inquiry and experimentation within the school and modelling learning leadership in the school are factors that help improve staff job satisfaction [45].

Studies analysing the effectiveness of the SLO approaches have found that schools that implement the SLO principles have higher levels of teacher job satisfaction, which is particularly influenced by the implementation of SLO dimensions, such as shared vision, growing leadership and teamwork. Furthermore, a particularly strong correlation between the implementation of the SLO elements and teacher job satisfaction and personal efficacy has been found to exist in Nordic countries—Finland, Sweden and Norway—and in East Asian countries, such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan [40].

Since people are the main agents of change in the transformation of schools into learning organisations in response to socio-economic and geopolitical changes and topical issues in society, in the validation process of the theoretical model of the SLO in Latvia, this study intended to evaluate the practice of the SLO implementation in Latvia in relation to teacher job satisfaction.

The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between the Latvian eight-dimensional SLO model and job satisfaction of teachers in general education institutions, as well as to find out whether teacher job satisfaction depends on the school type, the school size, the geographical location of the school, teacher workload and work experience and whether teachers have one or more jobs.

In order to achieve the aim of this article, the following research questions were raised:

• Is there a relationship between the school as a learning organisation and teacher job satisfaction in general education in Latvia?
• Is there a relationship between teacher job satisfaction in general education and the school type, the school size, the location of the school, teacher workload, the teacher’s work experience and whether the teacher has one or more jobs?

The results of this study are intended to contribute to the achievement of the objectives set in the Education Development Guidelines of Latvia 2021–2027, as well as to the improvement of the quality assessment of educational institutions, including the tasks and recommendations provided to educational institutions for enhancing the quality of education. Furthermore, this is the first study in which the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and the SLO has been examined in education in Latvia. Research conducted so far has analysed various teacher job satisfaction aspects, such as the impact of salary, but not in the context of the SLO. Therefore, the data obtained in this study will be used in the development of educational policy in order to promote the implementation of the SLO in general educational institutions in Latvia and thus to promote teachers’ overall job satisfaction as well.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Instrument

The analysis of the SLO and teacher job satisfaction presented in this article is part of a study in Latvia within the project, “A model and tool to support the implementation of the approach school as a learning organisation in educational institutions”, being implemented within the European Social Fund project, “Establishment and implementation of the Education Quality Monitoring System”, and based on the developed and validated SLO model in general and vocational education in Latvia within this project. The development and validation of the Latvian SLO model was carried out between November 2022 and March 2023 and was implemented in two stages.

Stage 1. Based on the results of a feasibility study, the first stage includes the following:

• The study of the theoretical concept of the SLO [46,47,48,49,50,51,52];
• Research on SLO models and approaches in other countries [4,10,11,12,53];
• Evaluation of system-level education policy practices for the learning organisation development in education in Latvia [54,55,56];
• Evaluation of the current learning organisation practices in education in Latvia [57] and the main impediments to the implementation of the learning organisation concept, considering its functioning in Latvia and abroad [58].

As a result, the SLO theoretical model was developed, identifying eight dimensions and 80 indicators (10 indicators per dimension).

Stage 2. An in-depth analysis of the developed SMO model was carried out based on the following:

• Evaluation of the SLO theoretical model in two focus group discussions in a group of 6 experts. As a result of discussions, the SMO model was expanded to 82 indicators;
• Statistical validation of the SLO theoretical model in a sample of 692 school employees: 523 employees from general education institutions and 169 employees from vocational education institutions. To validate the SLO theoretical model, a questionnaire was developed where each indicator had to be evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree, 2 = partly agree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = partly agree, 5 = agree). The questionnaire was created on the QuestionPro website. Data were collected between 20 January and 1 March 2023. Statistical analysis was carried out to assess the structure, reliability and descriptive statistics of the developed model. In this step, the fit of the model to the data was calculated. To compensate for the skewness of the data from a normal distribution, the calculation was performed with the Satorra–Bentler correction [59], and the correction factor was 1.74. Fit indices confirmed model complexity as χ2(2974) = 5507.55, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 1.85, RMSEA = 0.035 (90% CI from 0.034 to 0.036, p > 0.999), SRMR = 0.041, indicating a good model fit the data, but CFI = 0.84 and TLI = 0.83 were significantly below 0.90, which constitutes the minimally acceptable limit [60]. As a result of the statistical analysis, the number of indicators of the SLO model was reduced to 60 indicators within the existing eight dimensions;
• Testing the SLO model (eight dimensions and 60 indicators) in an extended panel of experts. Combining the results of the statistical validation and the experts’ opinions, the analysis resulted in a version of the SLO model with 51 indicators within the eight dimensions and 2 additional unique indicators in vocational education. Confirmatory factor analysis of the improved version confirmed an acceptable model fit to the data: χ2(1246) = 2186.38, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 1.75, CFI = 0.90 and TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.033 (90% CI 0.031 to 0.035, p > 0.999), SRMR = 0.037. In this model, the comparative indices (CFI and TLI) reached the 0.90 level, and the error indices (RMSEA and SRMR) were below 0.05 [60].

A visualisation of the development process of the Latvian SLO model is shown in Figure 1.

A comparative analysis was carried out to confirm the equivalence of the model structure between the general and vocational educational institution groups. This showed that the factor weights of all indicators were equivalent in both groups: the SLO model with fixed factor weights in the general and vocational educational institution groups is not significantly different from the model with free factor weights: χ2(44) = 45.54, p = 0.408, ΔRMSEA = 0.000 and ΔCFI = 0.000.

The internal consistency analysis shows that all dimensions have sufficiently high internal consistency scores (see

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and internal consistency of the SLO questionnaire.

SLO Dimensions	General Education Institutions			Vocational Education Institutions
	n *	M (SD)	α	n *	M (SD)	α
Shared school mission, vision and values	6	4.39 (0.66)	0.85	6	4.39 (0.59)	0.82
The internal culture of the school organisation that promotes learning	6	4.46 (0.71)	0.87	6	3.87 (0.71)	0.91
Purposeful and continuous professional development of all employees	7	4.29 (0.73)	0.90	7	4.28 (0.71)	0.89
Promoting team learning	6	4.04 (0.83)	0.87	7	4.19 (0.68)	0.87
The system of knowledge collection and exchange at school	7	4.18 (0.79)	0.90	7	4.23 (0.69)	0.88
Research of professional practice and a culture of innovation at school	7	4.10 (0.79)	0.90	7	4.15 (0.70)	0.89
The role of school administration in modelling learning and promoting growth	7	4.33 (0.80)	0.93	7	4.36 (0.67)	0.91
Learning from the external environment and larger system	5	4.20 (0.83)	0.87	6	4.47 (0.60)	0.88

* n = number of indicators in dimension.

).

Following the aim of this article—to examine the relationship between the Latvian eight-dimensional SLO model and teacher job satisfaction in general education institutions, as well as to find out whether teacher job satisfaction depends on the school type, the school size, the geographical location of the school, teacher workload and work experience and whether teachers have one or more jobs—the SLO survey was carried out in June 2023, using a questionnaire consisting of three parts:

• A total of 51 indicators of the eight SLO dimensions, which had to be evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree, 2 = partly agree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = partly agree, 5 = agree).
• Several commonly used variables, namely, the school type (primary, elementary and secondary school), the geographical location of the school, the size of the school, teachers’ work experience and workload and whether teachers have one or more jobs.
• Four statements on teacher job satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale.

A confirmatory factor analysis was performed for the final testing of the Latvian SLO model in general and vocational education. Based on the developed structure, a model of eight intercorrelated factors was tested. The results of the analysis confirmed an acceptable fit of the model to the data: χ2(1196) = 2560.92, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.050 with a 90% confidence interval [0.048, 0.053], pRMSEA ≤ 0.05 = 0.382, SRMR = 0.044, AIC = 70167.14, and a Satorra–Bentler correction [59] coefficient of 1.66. Thus, the comparative indices (CFI and TLI) reached the level of 0.90, and the error indices (RMSEA and SRMR) were not above 0.05 [60]. Correlations between the dimensions of the model ranged from 0.59 to 0.86, confirming a close relationship among the dimensions.

The internal consistency analysis shows that all dimensions had sufficiently high internal consistency scores in the final testing of the Latvian SLO model in general and vocational education (see

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and internal consistency in the final testing of the Latvian SLO model.

SLO Dimensions	General Education Institutions			Vocational Education Institutions
	n *	M (SD)	α	n *	M (SD)	α
Shared school mission, vision and values	6	4.59 (0.49)	0.80	6	4.14 (0.84)	0.92
The internal culture of the school organisation that promotes learning	6	4.45 (0.58)	0.87	6	3.88 (0.89)	0.91
Purposeful and continuous professional development of all employees	7	4.8 (0.54)	0.87	7	4.04 (0.79)	0.90
Promoting team learning	6	4.14 (0.68)	0.80	7	3.93 (0.84)	0.90
The system of knowledge collection and exchange at school	7	4.41 (0.61)	0.87	7	4.01 (0.80)	0.92
Research of professional practice and a culture of innovation at school	7	4.29 (0.62)	0.87	7	3.90 (0.81)	0.91
The role of school administration in modelling learning and promoting growth	7	4.52 (0.57)	0.89	7	4.09 (0.86)	0.95
Learning from the external environment and larger system	5	4.28 (0.70)	0.84	6	4.21 (0.78)	0.90

* n = number of indicators in dimension.

).

2.2. Sampling and Data Collection Methods

The stratified probability sampling method was used for data collection, where the main factor used to select the sample of schools was the type of educational institution—general education or vocational education. In order to respect the representation of the type of educational institutions in the sample, the proportion of the smallest group, vocational education institutions in the population (6.9%), was taken into consideration. The minimum sample size for a population of 641 educational institutions (93.1% of general education institutions and 6.9% of vocational education institutions), a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of 5% and a population proportion of 6.9% was 86 general and vocational education institutions. The educational institutions were selected using the randomisation modelling function in IBM SPSS. The proportion of vocational education institutions in the sample of 86 education institutions was 7.0%. In parallel with the principle of sample proportion, the sample size was estimated in terms of the statistical power of the closeness of the correlation. A sample of 86 schools allows the estimation of a moderately close correlation coefficient (above 0.30) with a statistical power of 0.90 and an alpha-level error of 0.05.

The data were collected online by completing the developed questionnaire using www.questionpro.com. The online questionnaire was sent to and approved by the school management. Following the snowball sampling method [61], the developed online survey link was sent to the school management for further dissemination to the school staff through the school’s electronic school management systems. The time for data collection was limited to 6–30 June 2023, and during this period, responses were collected from 68 educational institutions—62 general education institutions (77% return rate) and 6 vocational education institutions (100% return rate)—and 759 school staff members, including school management, teachers and school support staff (e.g., psychologists, speech therapists, social pedagogues).

For the aim of this article, the responses from the sampled general education institutions were used. The analytical sample of the current study comprised 478 teachers from 62 general education institutions, which accounted for 10.5% of teachers from primary schools, 30.2% of teachers from elementary schools and 59.3% of teachers from secondary schools or gymnasiums. In addition, 69% of teachers worked in a school not located in the state city. The fewest teachers (13.2% and 13.8%) represented those from schools with up to 100 students and schools with more than 1001 students, respectively (see

Table 3. Characteristics of the sample according to the parameters of the general educational institution represented by the teachers.

Criterion	Indicator	Valid %
School type	Primary school	10.5%
	Elementary school	30.2%
	Secondary school	59.3%
School size (number of students)	Up to 100 students	13.2%
	101–300 students	26.4%
	301–500 students	22.0%
	501–1000 students	24.7%
	1001 and more students	13.8%
Geographical location of the school	State city	31.0%
	Not the state city	69.0%

).

Of the sample, 64.2% comprises teachers employed more than 90% of full-time hours, 25.5% comprises teachers with work experience of up to 5 years, and 40.0% comprises teachers with work experience of 25 or more years at the school. For 71.8% of the teachers, the school was their only workplace (see

Table 4. Characteristics of the sample according to the individual parameters represented by the teachers of general educational institutions.

Criterion	Indicator	Valid %
What is your workload at this school?	Part-time (less than 50% of full-time hours)	6.9%
	Part-time (50–70% of full-time hours)	13.6%
	Part-time (71–90% of full-time hours)	15.3%
	Full-time (more than 90% of full-time hours)	64.2%
Work experience at school	Up to 5 years	24.5%
	6–12 years	15.3%
	13–24 years	19.3%
	25 or more years	40.9%
Is this school your only workplace?	No	28.2%
	Yes	71.8%

).

The obtained data were analysed in accordance with the personal data protection requirements set out in the Latvian Personal Data Processing Law and the Declaration of Helsinki, and the research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Social Sciences and Humanities of the University of Latvia (26 April 2021, Nr. 2–3/46).

2.3. Data Processing and Analysis Methods

IBM SPSS software (version 26) was used to analyse the quantitative data obtained from the SLO survey. As part of the data analysis, the normal distribution of the obtained data was examined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p < 0.05); Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Spearman’s rho) was used to determine the relationships between the SLO model and teacher job satisfaction in general education and between teacher job satisfaction and the school type, school size, teacher workload and working experience. Point Biserial correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and the geographical location (dichotomous variable) and whether teachers have one or more jobs (dichotomous variable). Calculations of confirmatory factor analysis were performed in the open-source program “lavaan” [62].

3. Results

The data obtained indicated that the SLO is statistically significantly correlated with teacher job satisfaction. The highest correlation coefficient of 0.473 was found between SLO and the statement on a teacher’s willingness to recommend the school as a good workplace to learn with and from colleagues (see

Table 5. Correlations between SLO and teacher job satisfaction in general education in Latvia (Spearman’s rho results).

Teacher Job Satisfaction	SLO
I like working at this school.	r = 0.303 **
Overall, I am satisfied with working at this school.	r = 0.342 **
I would recommend this school as a good workplace, where you can learn with and from colleagues.	r = 0.473 **
If I had the chance to decide again, I would still choose to work at school.	r = 0.281 **

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

). This means that in schools where the SLO approach is more implemented, teachers are more satisfied with their work and express a greater willingness to collaborate and learn with others.

The results summarised in Table 5 reveal that only one statement measuring teacher job satisfaction in this study, “I would recommend this school as a good workplace, where you can learn with and from colleagues”, had a moderately positive and significant correlation (r = 473, p < 0.01) with the SLO model. However, this statement is related to several dimensions of the SLO, such as “promoting team learning” and “purposeful and continuous professional development of all employees”, whose implementation in the school may directly influence a teacher’s decision to recommend a particular educational institution as a good workplace to implement mutual learning. Results of the study show that the implementation of the SLO contributes not only to a teacher’s overall job satisfaction but also to their loyalty to a particular educational institution—in schools where the SLO model is more widely implemented, teachers are more likely to choose to work at this school again (r = 0.281, p < 0.01).

Positive and statistically significant correlations were found between all SLO dimensions and all variables on teacher job satisfaction (see

Table 6. Relationships between SLO dimensions and teacher job satisfaction in general education in Latvia (Spearman’s rho results).

SLO Dimensions	I Like Working at This School	Overall, I Am Satisfied with Working at This School	I Would Recommend This School as a Good Workplace, Where You Can Learn with and from Colleagues	If I Had the Chance to Decide Again, I Would Still Choose to Work at School
Shared school mission, vision and values	r = 0.205 **	r = 0.221 **	r = 0.308 **	r = 0.137 **
The internal culture of the school organisation that promotes learning	r = 0.255 **	r = 0.312 **	r = 0.443 **	r = 0.251 **
Purposeful and continuous professional development of all employees	r = 0.260 **	r = 0.321 **	r = 0.438 **	r = 0.263 **
Promoting team learning	r = 0.263 **	r = 0.290 **	r = 0.386 **	r = 0.260 **
The system of knowledge collection and exchange at school	r = 0.263 **	r = 0.288 **	r = 0.393 **	r = 0.220 **
Research of professional practice and a culture of innovation at school	r = 0.255 **	r = 0.288 **	r = 0.436 **	r = 0.255 **
The role of school administration in modelling learning and promoting growth	r = 0.308 **	r = 0.341 **	r = 0.465 **	r = 0.242 **
Learning from the external environment and larger system	r = 0.272 **	r = 0.284 **	r = 0.354 **	r = 0.201 **

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

). The highest correlation coefficient (r = 0.465) was for the variable, “I would recommend this school as a good workplace, where you can learn with and from colleagues”, and the SLO dimension, “The role of school administration in modelling learning and promoting growth” (see Table 6). This demonstrates the key role of school leadership in shaping an environment that fosters a positive work atmosphere and teachers’ mutual learning from each other.

Examining whether teacher job satisfaction is related to demographic characteristics of the school staff, such as the amount of work experience at the school, workload and whether the teacher has one or more jobs, and certain characteristics of the educational establishment, such as school type, school size and geographical location of the school, the results pointed to significant relationships only between the one staff job satisfaction variable and two demographic characteristics of the school staff (see

Table 7. Relationships between teacher job satisfaction and several control variables in general education in Latvia.

	I Like Working at This School	Overall, I Am Satisfied with Working at This School	I Would Recommend This School as a Good Workplace, Where You Can Learn with and from Colleagues	If I Had the Chance to Decide Again, I Would Still Choose to Work at School
School type (Spearman’s rho)	r = 0.007	r = −0.057	r = −0.053	r = 0.034
School size (Spearman’s rho)	r = 0.056	r = 0.023	r = −0.010	r = 0.022
Geographical location of the school (Point Biserial coef.)	r = −0.057	r = −0.073	r = −0.073	r = 0.006
Teacher’s work experience (Spearman’s rho)	r = 0.010	r = −0.055	r = 0.060	r = −0.028
Teacher’s workload (Spearman’s rho)	r = 0.043	r = 0.073	r = 0.099 *	r = −0.044
Teacher has only one workplace (Point Biserial coef.)	r = 0.028	r = 0.086	r = 0.095 *	r = 0.056

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

).

According to correlation results summarised in Table 7, there are no significant relationships between teacher job satisfaction and school type (p > 0.05) (primary school, elementary school and secondary school or gymnasium), school size (p > 0.05), the geographical location of the school (p > 0.05) and a teacher’s work experience (p > 0.05). Despite the fact that correlations are weak, however, the results indicate significant relationships between the teacher job satisfaction variable, “I would recommend this school as a good workplace, where you can learn with and from colleagues”, and two control variables: “Teachers’ workload” (r = 0.099, p < 0.05) and “Teacher has one or more jobs” (r = 0.095, p < 0.05). Teachers for whom this school is their only workplace and who work at least 71% of full-time hours are more likely to recommend this school as a good workplace than teachers who have more jobs and have a workload of less than 70% of full-time hours at school (see

Table 8. Teacher job satisfaction depending on their workload and whether teachers have one or more jobs: A pivot table.

		I Would Recommend This School as a Good Workplace, Where You Can Learn with and from Colleagues
		Disagree	Partly disagree	Neither agree/ disagree	Partly agree	Agree
Is this your only workplace?	No	1.5%	1.5%	3.0%	26.3%	67.7%
	Yes	0.0%	1.2%	1.5%	23.1%	74.2%
What is your workload at this school?	Part-time (less than 50% of full-time hours)	0.0%	3.2%	3.2%	29.0%	64.5%
	Part-time (50–70% of full-time hours)	0.0%	1.6%	4.9%	31.1%	62.3%
	Part-time (71–90% of full-time hours)	0.0%	1.4%	1.4%	25.0%	72.2%
	Full-time (more than 90% of full-time hours)	0.7%	1.0%	1.3%	21.8%	75.2%

).

Additional correlation analysis in groups of these several variables revealed that a significant relationship between SLO and teacher job satisfaction, with some exceptions, exists in all groups of variables. As indicated by the correlation results summarised in

Table 9. Relationship between SLO and teachers’ job satisfaction in general education within the several variables.

		I like Working at This School	Overall, I Am Satisfied with Working at This School	I Would Recommend This School as a Good Workplace, Where You Can Learn with and from Colleagues	If I Had the Chance to Decide Again, I Would Still Choose to Work at School
Is this your only workplace? 1	Yes No	0.353 ** 0.328 **	0.348 ** 0.383 **	0.433 ** 0.409 **	0.120 ** 0.359 **
Geographical location of school 1	In the state city	0.346 **	0.290 **	0.337 **	0.186 **
	Outside the state city	0.341 **	0.375 **	0.472 **	0.203 **
School size (number of students) 2	up to 100	0.325 **	0.383 **	0.512 **	0.343 **
	101–300	0.376 **	0.400 **	0.584 **	0.380 **
	301–500	0.245 *	0.167	0.352 **	0.307 **
	501–1000	0.265 **	0.328 **	0.361 **	0.191 *
	1001 and more	0.277 *	0.473 **	0.561 **	0.253 *
Working experience 2	up to 5 years	0.337 **	0.317 **	0.510 **	0.308 **
	6–12 years	0.212	0.375 **	0.387 **	0.323 **
	13–24 years	0.351 **	0.343 **	0.522 **	0.142
	25 years and more	0.275 **	0.364 **	0.452 **	0.326 **
School type 2	Primary school	0.268	0.075	0.576 **	0.139
	Elementary school	0.344 **	0.410 **	0.541 **	0.357 **
	Secondary school/gymnasium	0.281 **	0.353 **	0.420 **	0.269 **
What is your workload at this school? 2	Part-time (less than 50% hours of full-time) Part-time (50–70% hours of full-time) Part-time (71–90% hours of full-time) Full-time (more than 90% hours of full-time)	0.158 0.367 ** 0.248 * 0.315 **	0.507 ** 0.230 0.457 ** 0.326 **	0.462 ** 0.462 ** 0.468 ** 0.464 **	0.361 * 0.361 * 0.269 * 0.225 **

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). ¹ Point Biserial correlation coefficient; ² Spearmans’ rho correlation coeffiecient.

, the SLO contributes to teacher job satisfaction for those who work at only one school, as well as for teachers for whom this school is not their sole employment. On the other hand, regarding the workload of teachers in the school, the results of the correlations reveal that there is no significant relationship in two cases: (1) the extent to which teachers like the school in which they work and the SLO practices in this school are not related to the job satisfaction of teachers whose workload is less than 50% of full-time hours (r= 0.158, p > 0.05); (2) overall teacher job satisfaction and SLO implementation are not related to teachers whose workload is 50–70% of full-time hours (r = 0.230, p > 0.05).

Interesting results emerge when looking at the correlation results depending on the geographical location of the school: although there are significant correlations in both groups (“school in the state city”/“school outside the state city”), the results show that, overall, stronger correlations are observed in the group, “school outside the state city”. Accordingly, teacher job satisfaction and SLO are slightly more pronounced in schools located outside the state cities of Latvia (national significance development centres) (see Table 9).

The results of the correlations also reveal that teacher job satisfaction is least contributed by the SLO approach in primary schools. The results summarised in Table 9 indicate that within the primary school group, out of the four variables of teachers’ job satisfaction, only one variable, “I would recommend this school as a good workplace, where you can learn with and from colleagues”, has a significant correlation with SLO (r = 0. 576; p < 0.01).

4. Discussion

The findings of the study suggest that the implementation of the “school learning organisation” approach in school management practice in general education has the potential to have a positive impact on teacher job satisfaction. The study found significant relationships between all eight dimensions of the SLO model in Latvia and a teacher’s overall job satisfaction. This supports the findings of Gouëdard, Kools and George [40], in which the implementation of the SLO model in schools, which is linked to teachers’ practice of mutual learning and teamwork, the reduction of constraints on the professional development of employees and the implementation of learning leadership improves teacher job satisfaction, and the findings of Savas [63] and Shalihin, Kamaluddin, Iru and Husain [64], in which a teacher’s overall satisfaction with learning organisation practices in school strongly and positively predicts their job satisfaction. Similar findings were in other research, stating that all five elements of a professional learning community had significant and positive effects on teacher job satisfaction [65].

However, the obtained data contradict the conclusion of Gouëdard, Kools and George [40], in which the SLO dimensions of “shared vision” (in the authors’ study—“Shared school mission, vision and values”) and “growing leadership” (in the authors’ study—“The role of school administration in modelling learning and promoting growth”) have the most significant impact on teacher job satisfaction. According to the authors’ findings, other dimensions of the SLO, such as “Purposeful and continuous professional development of all employees” and “The internal culture of the school organisation that promotes learning”, have the same potential to improve teacher job satisfaction in general education institutions in Latvia. Regarding the professional development of employees, the study by Smet [66] confirmed the importance of professional development in increasing teacher job satisfaction for teachers with low needs: it was found that teacher job satisfaction significantly increased when teachers with low needs were involved in professional development. Recent studies [67,68,69,70] also found that teacher job satisfaction is influenced by opportunities for professional or academic development. Regarding the significant relationship found in the study between the SLO dimension of the internal culture of the school organisation that promotes learning and teacher job satisfaction, similar results were found in a recent Romanian study in which teacher job satisfaction was found to increase if the working environment was based on honest collegiality [70], in Turkey, revealing a positive and significant relationship between a teacher’s organisational commitment and their job satisfaction [71], and in Poland and Malaysia, confirming the assumption of a strong relationship between the school’s organisational climate and teachers’ job satisfaction [72,73] and work-related emotions [73]. Therefore, when implementing changes in the school management model, it is necessary to pay attention to how schools organise teachers’ professional development by collecting data to identify teachers’ learning needs, offering diverse learning activities and measuring their impact on teachers’ professional performance in the classroom and students’ academic achievements [74], and to building respectful, dialogue-based collaborative relationships among staff [75]. In this way, it is possible to build a democratic internal culture of school organisation and promote teacher participation in decision-making at the school level [76].

Results of the study showed that teachers in all types of schools in Latvia feel equally satisfied with their work at school. It was mentioned earlier in the discussion that the study conducted by Otrębski [73] confirmed the assumption of a strong relationship between the school’s organisational climate and teacher job satisfaction and work-related emotions, but it was not confirmed that these work relationships are influenced by the school type.

No significant relationship was found between teacher job satisfaction and work experience (the length of service), which was also confirmed in other studies [70,77,78,79,80,81] examining the relationship between the learning organisation and the primary teacher’s job satisfaction. No significant relationship was found between teacher job satisfaction and whether the teacher works in a small school of up to 100 pupils or a large school of more than 1000 pupils and whether the school is located in one of the state cities defined in the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas of the Republic of Latvia [82] or in other cities or municipalities. The last one can be explained by the fact that teachers in Latvia, regardless of the geographical location of the school, face similar professional challenges due to the changes taking place in the education sector, such as changes in the curriculum and teaching approach, school management model, etc., which may affect the job satisfaction both in one particular educational institution and in the education system as a whole. In contrast, when analysing the TALIS-2018 research data on teachers in Turkey, the location of the school was found to be one of the determinants of teacher job satisfaction [81].

However, on the whole, general education teachers in Latvia are satisfied with their work at school [83,84,85]. According to the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) in 2018, “In Latvia, 91% of teachers report that, all in all, they are satisfied with their job (OECD average 90%)” [83] (pp. 2), but at the same time, the TALIS survey shows that only 22% of teachers in Latvia were satisfied with their salaries [83]. The results of a study conducted by the Latvian Trade Union of Education and Science Employees two years later, in 2021, indicated that only 19% of teachers were satisfied with their salaries [86]. Despite systemic issues in education, unlike teachers in Latvia, teachers in Romania believe that the teaching profession offers a secure future, primarily because of income and various incentives, and this attitude increases teacher job satisfaction [67].

As concluded by the authors of the current study, teachers demonstrate different levels of job satisfaction depending on whether they work full-time or part-time in a school and whether they have one or more jobs. These findings are consistent with the results of a study recently conducted in Romania confirming the significant effects of teachers working conditions on their job satisfaction [67] and a study in Sweden confirming that a teacher’s workload is closely related to their job satisfaction [68].

The obtained results in this study confirm that the role of school leadership, the school’s internal organisational culture, teachers’ opportunities for participation in decision-making, teachers’ opportunities for professional development within the school, working as a team and other aspects of the school’s professional activities contribute to teacher job satisfaction. Geske and Ozola [85] also pointed to aspects of the internal culture of the school organisation, such as the quality of mutual relationships between staff and the role of school management in creating a learning- and peer-supportive school environment, as key factors influencing job satisfaction among teachers in Latvia. In the study by Otrębski [73] on school climate and teacher job satisfaction, it was concluded that effective diversity management in comprehensive schools promotes a positive organisational climate, which, in turn, enhances job satisfaction and positive teacher emotions about their work and is a prerequisite for high educational quality provision for all students. This confirms that explanations for teacher job satisfaction indicators need to be sought in the context of professional practices that characterise the performance of schools, such as the implementation of shared vision and strategic leadership, professional development of staff, building collaborative and team learning systems within the organisation [87] and other aspects related to the SLO approach, which have so far received relatively little attention in research on school management practices in Latvia.

According to Kools [6], in the context of school as a learning organisation, teacher job satisfaction needs to be analysed more broadly using the concept of well-being. Since in many countries, including Latvia, the movement towards introducing new changes in the education system and increasing the professionalism of teachers takes place in difficult conditions related to excessive workload, insufficient funding, limited autonomy, increased stress and teacher burnout, the well-being of teachers is an essential aspect of the changes for mitigating implementation risks.

5. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

One of the limitations of the current study is related to the fact that the data analysis was based on job satisfaction indicators of general education teachers in the context of the implementation of the dimensions of the SLO model in schools. As teachers in vocational education institutions require specific professional knowledge and skills and work with a more diverse audience of students than general education teachers [88], their job satisfaction indicators may differ from the results obtained in this study. Therefore, in the framework of future research, it is important to compare the job satisfaction of teachers in general and vocational education institutions in the context of the implementation of the SLO in order to identify systemic preconditions for improving teacher job satisfaction indicators and to ensure mutual transfer of good practice examples from one education sector to another.

Another limitation of the current study is related to the availability of data for teachers on the practical implementation of all the performance indicators defined in the SLO model of Latvia. As the questionnaire includes questions on 51 different indicators related to the professional activities of the school, it is possible that teachers who are not directly involved in school management may not have sufficient data and evidence to objectively assess the implementation of each SLO dimension in the school, particularly the ones that relate to the work of the school’s administration. Therefore, the obtained results may not be automatically transferable to other education systems, taking into account the possibility of socially desirable responses in relation to the implementation of the SLO model in the school, as well as the potential influence of local educational context and national cultural factors on responses related to job satisfaction [89,90]. This means that in the context of the national education policy, when setting the implementation of SLO in schools as the goal of strategic change, it is also important to implement local or national professional development programs that enable school leaders and teachers to not only familiarise themselves with the performance indicators of each SLO dimension but also to identify specific practices and evidence of their implementation at the organisational level.

One of the factors influencing teacher job satisfaction is undoubtedly remuneration, which, in the case of Latvia, is cited as one of the main reasons for dissatisfaction among education workers, as it is not commensurate with the education, investment in work and responsibility of teachers, as a result of which “teaching in Latvia is considered to be unworthy” [91]. Without doubting the impact of this factor on teacher job satisfaction, separate studies should be conducted to explain how teacher job satisfaction correlates with the remuneration received and the implementation of the SLO at the school. This will provide an opportunity to ascertain whether the rhetoric in the public domain, indicating that increasing the salary of teachers should be the main objective of the changes implemented in the education sector, withstands scientific validation.

Since the research shows that the SLO in general education correlates with teacher job satisfaction, increasing teachers’ pay should be integrated with the implementation of the SLO in educational institutions. Therefore, in-depth research on the reciprocal effects of remuneration and the implementation of the SLO model on teacher job satisfaction will complement the scientific discussion on the factors that not only determine teacher job satisfaction in a particular educational institution but also influence the development of a teacher’s professional identity and their awareness of their role in the wider context of the education system [92], influencing the teacher’s personal motivation and performance with students in the long term [93].

Separate research should also be carried out to study which dimensions of the SLO model’s performance indicators may have a higher potential to have a positive impact on teacher job satisfaction. This is due to the limited financial, administrative and professional resources available to schools to make fundamental changes in school management practices. Therefore, early identification of the relevant dimensions of the SLO or specific performance indicators will allow schools and local authorities to reduce the costs associated with implementing changes in the education sector that have the potential to contribute to teacher job satisfaction.