Teacher satisfaction and burnout during COVID-19: what organizational factors help?

Abstract

When an external crisis exacerbates an internal crisis, do organizational factors still matter? Given the crises of the COVID-19 pandemic and teacher burnout, it may be unlikely for organizational decisions to matter. However, this research using a representative sample of US K-12 teachers (n = 1,061 teachers instructing youths aged 5 to 18) presents important insights into how school organizations matter during times of crises. Although there is a crisis of teachers feeling burned out and intending to leave the profession, organizational factors still make a di erence. In particular, organizational support and satisfaction with school decisions were associated with greater personal satisfaction and reduced burnout. Despite unions' demands to suspend in-person instruction, this instructional modality was associated with higher teacher motivation and greater satisfaction with school decision. We explore broader implications in terms of education during internal and external crises, and the role of organizational intentionality during these times.

Full text

RESEARCH
Teacher satisfaction and burnout during COVID-19: what
organizational factors help?
Jose Eos Trinidad
Trinidad Is with the Departments of Sociology and Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago
and the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Ateneo de Manila University, Chicago, IL, USA
ABSTRACT
When an external crisis exacerbates an internal crisis, do organiza-
tional factors still matter? Given the crises of the COVID-19 pan-
demic and teacher burnout, it may be unlikely for organizational
decisions to matter. However, this research using a representative
sample of US K-12 teachers (n = 1,061 teachers instructing youths
aged 5 to 18) presents important insights into how school organi-
zations matter during times of crises. Although there is a crisis of
teachers feeling burned out and intending to leave the profession,
organizational factors still make a dierence. In particular, organiza-
tional support and satisfaction with school decisions were asso-
ciated with greater personal satisfaction and reduced burnout.
Despite unions’ demands to suspend in-person instruction, this
instructional modality was associated with higher teacher motiva-
tion and greater satisfaction with school decision. We explore
broader implications in terms of education during internal and
external crises, and the role of organizational intentionality during
these times.
Introduction
In the United States, half a million teachers either move or leave the profession every
year, costing the US up to $2.2 billion (Haynes et al., 2014). Such movement and attrition
are often explained by the amount of stress and burnout teachers experience from their
workload, low pay, lack of resources, accountability pressures, hostile environments, and
other factors inherent in the work of teaching (Farber, 1991; Helou et al., 2016; Richards,
2012). In 2020, this internal crisis of teacher stress had been intensified by the external
crisis of the novel coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) disease: teachers were increasingly
exhausted during the early part of the pandemic (Sokal et al., 2020), were concerned
about safety and equity in students’ learning (Trinidad, 2020), and experienced heigh-
tened stress, confusion and uncertainty because of school closures and transition to
remote learning (L. E. Kim & Asbury, 2020). Moreover, this happened in the context
of wider political tensions with the U.S. national elections and racial tensions with police
killings and brutality (Galea & Abdalla, 2020).
CONTACT Jose Eos Trinidad jtrinidad@uchicago.ed Trinidad Is with the Departments of Sociology and
Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago and the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Ateneo De
Manila University, 5551 S Kimbark Ave, Room 1, Chicago, Il 60615
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.2006795
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Below is the pre-print manuscript version of the research. I provide this in order for other
researchers who do not have access to journal articles and databases to have access to this
present research.
If you wish to receive the print version, you may email me at jtrinidad@ateneo.edu or
jtrinidad@uchicago.edu

Teacher satisfaction and burnout during COVID-19: What organizational factors help?
Jose Eos Trinidad
1
When an external crisis exacerbates an internal crisis, do organizational factors still
matter? Given the crises of the COVID-19 pandemic and teacher burnout, it may be
unlikely for organizational decisions to matter. However, this research using a
representative sample of US K-12 teachers (n = 1,061 teachers instructing youths
aged 5 to 18) presents important insights into how school organizations matter during
times of crises. Although there is a crisis of teachers feeling burned out and intending
to leave the profession, organizational factors still make a difference. In particular,
organizational support and satisfaction with school decisions were associated with
greater personal satisfaction and reduced burnout. Despite unions demands to
suspend in-person instruction, this instructional modality was associated with higher
teacher motivation and greater satisfaction with school decision. We explore broader
implications in terms of education during internal and external crises, and the role of
organizational intentionality during these times.
Keywords: COVID-19, teacher burnout, K-12 education, organizational decisions
1
Jose Eos Trinidad is with the Departments of Sociology and Comparative Human Development at the
University of Chicago and the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Ateneo de Manila University. His
research intersects organizational sociology, education policies, and quantitative methods. Correspondence:
5551 S Kimbark Ave, Room 1, Chicago IL 60615; jtrinidad@uchicago.edu

2
Teacher satisfaction and burnout during COVID-19: What organizational factors help?
When an external crisis exacerbates an internal crisis, do organizational factors still
matter? Given the crises of the COVID-19 pandemic and teacher burnout, it may be
unlikely for organizational decisions to matter. However, this research using a
representative sample of US K-12 teachers (n = 1,061 teachers instructing youths
aged 5 to 18) presents important insights into how school organizations matter during
times of crises. Although there is a crisis of teachers feeling burned out and intending
to leave the profession, organizational factors still make a difference. In particular,
organizational support and satisfaction with school decisions were associated with
greater personal satisfaction and reduced burnout. Despite unions demands to
suspend in-person instruction, this instructional modality was associated with higher
teacher motivation and greater satisfaction with school decision. We explore broader
implications in terms of education during internal and external crises, and the role of
organizational intentionality during these times.
Keywords: COVID-19, teacher burnout, K-12 education, organizational decisions

3
Teacher satisfaction and burnout during COVID-19: What organizational factors help?
Introduction
In the United States, half a million teachers either move or leave the profession every year, costing
the US up to $2.2 billion (Haynes et al., 2014). Such movement and attrition are often explained
by the amount of stress and burnout teachers experience from their workload, low pay, lack of
resources, accountability pressures, hostile environments, and other factors inherent in the work
of teaching (Farber, 1991; Helou et al., 2016; Richards, 2012). In 2020, this internal crisis of
teacher stress had been intensified by the external crisis of the novel coronavirus 19 (COVID-19)
disease: teachers were increasingly exhausted during the early part of the pandemic (Sokal et al.,
2020), were concerned about safet and equit in students learning (Trinidad, 2020), and
experienced heightened stress, confusion and uncertainty because of school closures and transition
to remote learning (L. E. Kim & Asbury, 2020). Moreover, this happened in the context of wider
political tensions with the U.S. national elections and racial tensions with police killings and
brutality (Galea & Abdalla, 2020).
In the context of these internal and external crises, schools and school systems across the
globe made organizational decisions primarily in response to the pandemic (Burgess & Sievertsen,
2020; Malkus et al., 2020). In the United States, decisions such as school closures and technology
supports were prevalent at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 (Auger et al., 2020; Donohue
& Miller, 2020), and these later moved to decisions regarding resuming in-person classes, having
hybrid instruction, and providing assistance to students and staff (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020;
Vegas & Winthrop, 2020). Although these decisions tried to balance the risks of reopening schools

4
and the harms of continued closure (Viner et al., 2020), they also came into conflict with opposition
from teachers and teacher unions, who were against certain school decisions like physical
reopening (DeAngelis & Makridis, 2020).
Given the magnitude of the difficulties of the 2020 pandemic, we ask if organizational
factorswhether in the form of organizational supports or organizational decisionsmay prove
decisive in the context of crises. On the one hand, organizational factors may help support and
alleviate teachers stress, while on the other hand, the pandemic and the alread persistent realit
of teacher burnout may be immune to these forms of mediation. This research focuses on
organiational factors, which are divided into organiational supports, inclusive of training
and mentorship, and organiational decisions, inclusive of the critical decision regarding the
mode of instruction (i.e., in-person, hybrid, online).
The present research asks if and what organizational factors were associated with increased
teacher satisfaction and reduced teacher burnout, particularly during the 2020 global pandemic:
(1) In a context of compounded crises, do organizational supports matter for teachers? If so, which
ones? (2) In the same context, does satisfaction with organiational decisions predict ones
personal satisfaction with work? If so, what decisions predict such organizational satisfaction? By
answering these questions, we suggest practical organizational factors that may be leveraged to
reduce teacher burnout and increase satisfaction during a health crisis. More broadly, this research
contributes to understanding school organizations during times of crises, and how organizational
factors can foster and sustain motivation during these times. We argue that intentional
organizational supports and decision engagement associate with greater satisfaction and reduced
burnout among teachers.

5
Literature Review
Internal crisis of teacher satisfaction/burnout
Across different contexts, research suggests that teachers have lower levels of satisfaction and
higher levels of stress than other professional groups (Jesus & Lens, 2005). In terms of work
satisfaction, many teachers feel unmotivated because of the lack of autonomy, whether with
students who have difficulties learning or with school policies that they are unable to affect (Johari
et al., 2018; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017). In terms of stress and burnout, the work of teaching can
itself contribute to feelings of frustration, busyness and lack of challenge (Farber, 1991; Helou et
al., 2016). In particular, burnout may manifest as mental exhaustion, cynicism, or reduced personal
efficacy (W. H. Kim et al., 2017). Attending to teachers work satisfaction and burnout is
particularly important since studies have also shown that greater teacher work satisfaction was
associated with more motivated students and better student learning outcomes (Banerjee et al.,
2017; Dicke et al., 2020; Herman et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2017). More importantly, many argue
that teachers sense of fulfilment is its own end to be pursued rather than a mere instrument for
better student results (Loonstra et al., 2009).
Given the importance of attending to teachers motivation, studies investigated correlates
of increased satisfaction and decreased burnout. Some studies suggest the influence of individual
factors such as personality traits (Cano-García et al., 2005), teacher self-efficacy (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2007), and previous experiences of accomplishment, failure, and burnout (Hultell et al.,
2013). However, many more studies point to the importance of organizational factors such as
school climate (Grayson & Alvarez, 2008; Menon et al., 2008), teacher workload and cooperation
(Toropova et al., 2020), reduced obstacles to teaching (Taylor & Tashakkori, 1995), and programs
specifically addressing burnout (Iancu et al., 2018). It must be noted though that some of these

6
organizational supports, like wellness/training interventions (Ouellette et al., 2018) and increased
teacher decision participation (Taylor & Tashakkori, 1995), were not associated with higher
satisfaction. Taken altogether, the previous studies highlight that many personal and social factors
influence and contribute to work satisfaction of teachers, and more research must interrogate the
specific factors helpful with increasing satisfaction and reducing burnout.
External crisis of COVID-19
The internal crisis of teacher burnout is further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic that has
had an impact on almost all sectors of society (Baker et al., 2020; Z. D. Berger et al., 2020; Lancker
& Parolin, 2020). In education in particular, most schools in the US had to physically close and
move instruction online during March 2020 and had to decide whether to open for the Fall of the
2020-2021 academic year (Donohue & Miller, 2020; Viner et al., 2020). Although the closure of
schools was done to prevent the spread of the virus (Auger et al., 2020; Martin & Sorensen, 2020),
this decision had also contributed to greater inequities in terms of educational outcomes (Lancker
& Parolin, 2020), created difficulties in attending to students mental health (Lee, 2020;
Pfefferbaum & North, 2020), and exacerbated disparities given the reduced or absent school-based
services for students nutritional and phsical needs (Masonbrink & Hurley, 2020).
Although most studies focus on the pandemics impact on students learning outcomes,
academic performance, and mental or physical health (Azevedo et al., 2020; Golberstein et al.,
2020), it is also important to interrogate the impact on teachers, particularly as they transitioned to
new modalities of teaching, encountered different sources of stresses, and risked their health if
they taught in person (Darling-Hammond & Hyler, 2020; Korkmaz & Toraman, 2020). As of early
2021, the still limited research highlighted how teachers were initially exhausted and stressed with
the transition but that this gave way to increased efficacy, adaptation, and wellbeing (Alves et al.,

7
2021; Sokal et al., 2020). Some research, however, showed that the pandemic had lowered teacher
morale and contributed to increased burnout, particularly at the start of the 2020-2021 academic
year (Diliberti & Kaufman, 2020). This may have been because of the decision to reopen schools,
often met with resistance from unions (DeAngelis & Makridis, 2020) and the further adjustments
expected of teachers (Goldberg, 2020). Moreover, the COVID-19 context in the U.S. cannot be
divorced from the political, economic, and racial tensions that citizens experienced (Gallea &
Abdalla, 2020).
Organizational factors during crisis: Supports and decisions
Given that the competing demands and priorities in times of crises are often adjudicated in the
school or district organizational level (Trinidad, 2020), an organizational perspective is necessary
to address these concerns. In particular, organizational factors in the form of supports and decisions
can be consequential for alleviating or exacerbating the crises presented in this paper (Bottiani et
al., 2019; Ouellette et al., 2018). However, there is no strong evidence/consensus about how
effective these organizational factors are in attending to these internal (teacher burnout) and
external (COVID-19) crises.
To start with, although organizational supports are assumed crucial to alleviate burnout
(Awa et al., 2010; Maricuoiu et al., 2016), interventions were often assessed during relatively and
societally more stable times. In the context of school organizations, supports like training and
mentorship are used to help with teacher satisfaction/burnout (Iancu et al., 2018). The question
remains, however, if these are enough to help teachers in the context of a global health pandemic.
The presence of organizational supports during times of crises may indicate a positive school
climate (Sutherland, 2017), consequently associated with teacher satisfaction and lower burnout
(Malinen & Savolainen, 2016). Yet, organizational supports may not have as much an effect

8
because of the unique challenges brought about by the COVID-19 health crisis (Sokal et al., 2020;
Wodon, 2020).
In addition, although workers may be satisfied with organizational decisions during a crisis,
this may not necessarily translate to personal satisfaction and reduction in burnout. In a school
context, teachers may be content with how the organization is addressing the crisis but these will
not necessarily trickle down to their everyday experiences, where feelings of satisfaction and
burnout are considered (Cano-García et al., 2005). Nonetheless, some studies suggest that
decisions and the process of decision-making were consequential for teachers feelings of
satisfaction and engagement with the school (Olcum & Titrek, 2015; Sarafidou & Chatziioannidis,
2013). These studies highlight the importance of being sensitive to teachers satisfaction with
organizational decisions, particularly during times of crises, which then predicts personal
satisfaction and burnout.
Moreover, although decisions may have positive outcomes for the organization, such
effects may not be equally shared among different stakeholders since trade-offs may happen (L.
Berger et al., 2020). Given the competing demands during times of crises, one decision may
privilege a set of stakeholders to the disadvantage of another (Hoover et al., 2020; Trinidad, 2020).
In the school context during COVID-19, the decision to resume in-person courses may privilege
students learning and ease parents burden but ma pose a threat to the health and safet of
teachers (Viner et al., 2020). It may be assumed that teachers are more satisfied and experience
less burnout if they do not have to constantly worry about their health and safety (DeAngelis &
Makridis, 2020). However, it may also be the case that teachers who teach remotely will experience
greater burnout because they will feel more stress with transitioning to fully virtual instruction and
communication (Mheidly et al., 2020).

9
Thus, organizational supports may be effective but only during relatively more stable
times; satisfaction with organizational decisions may be helpful but not necessarily translate to
personal wellbeing; and the crucial decision of the instructional modality may be associated with
increased burnout either for teachers who have to teach in person (and worry about their safety) or
for those who have to teach online (and have to contend with this less-than-optimal setup). Given
these contradictions, the COVID-19 situation affords an opportunity to study organizational
dynamics during internal and external crises.
Research Aims and Hypotheses
The ambiguous, and at times contradictory, possibilities provide an opportunity for more research
into organizational factors and how they affect teacher satisfaction and burnout during the COVID-
19 pandemic. This descriptive exploratory analysis uses a nationally representative sample of US
teachers to investigate how organizational supports and decisions are associated with teacher
satisfaction and burnout. We argue that despite the magnitude of the pandemic, organizational
factors still matter in alleviating concern and promoting satisfaction with school staff. However,
we present some counterintuitive findings, particularly on which decisions were associated with
increased satisfaction. Below, we explicate our hypotheses to our main questions regarding
organizational factors influencing teacher satisfaction and burnout.
In schools, teachers may find organizational supports in the form of trainings as helpful,
even if only to show that the organization is making efforts to support teachers, and so we
hypothesize that during the 2020 pandemic:
Hypothesis 1A: Having more organizational supports is associated with increased teacher
job satisfaction, reduced teacher burnout, and reduced likelihood of leaving teaching.

10
It may be the case, however, that certain organizational supports are more strongly associated with
these positive outcomes. Thus, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1B: Certain organizational supports (i.e., trainings) independently relate with
more positive teacher satisfaction outcomes.
In addition to organizational support, teachers who are satisfied with how their schools and districts
are handling the pandemic situation may also be more satisfied with their work and experience
less burnout. It may be the case that these positive attitudes to the school organization give rise to
increased teacher satisfaction and reduced burnout:
Hypothesis 2: Teachers satisfaction with organiational decisions is associated with
increased teacher job satisfaction, reduced teacher burnout, and reduced likelihood of
leaving teaching.
Since the most consequential decision during the start of the 2020-2021 academic year was the
mode of instruction (i.e., in-person, remote, or hybrid), it may be hypothesized that such decision
will impact both teachers satisfaction with organiational decision, and teachers job satisfaction,
burnout, and likelihood of leaving. In particular, the health risks of teaching in person may be
thought as associated with lower levels of satisfaction and higher levels of burnout. Thus, we
hypothesize that during the pandemic:

11
Hypothesis 3A: Compared to teaching remotely, teaching in-person is associated with
decreased job satisfaction, increased teacher burnout, and increased likelihood of leaving
teaching.
Hypothesis 3B: Compared to teaching remotely, teaching in-person is associated with
teachers decreased satisfaction with organiational decisions.
Data and Methods
American Educator Panels Sample
Collected by the RAND Corporation, the 2020 Fall COVID-19 Distance Learning Survey is part
of RANDs American Educator Panels that documented teachers and school leaders experiences
and transitions during the COVID-19 pandemic (RAND American Educator Panel, 2020b). This
quantitative study was fielded to teachers in an online survey trying to understand how teachers
and schools were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first survey was conducted between
April and May 2020 as many US schools and districts transitioned to remote learning while the
second survey happened in October 2020 (Hamilton et al., 2020; RAND American Educator Panel,
2020a). The present research uses data from the October surve that asked about teachers school
experiences, modes of instruction (online, in-person, hybrid), and school organizational decisions.
While other surveys were done by schools and districts, this survey is among the few nationally
representative of the US.
The sample included 1,061 valid observations of teachersa nationally representative
sample of K-12 teachers in the United States. The American Educator Panels used high-quality
probability-based sampling and weighting procedures, which included surveying teachers of all
K-12 grade levels and intentionally sampling from minority-serving schools (RAND American
Educator Panel, 2020a). All analyses included calibrated weights to obtain estimates representative

12
of US teachers. The survey asked teachers about their characteristics, job satisfaction, working
conditions, instruction, and school characteristics, training and supports (RAND American
Educator Panel, 2020b).
Measurement
Teacher satisfaction and burnout were measured using teachers self-reports about their
experience at the start of the 2020-2021 academic year (i.e., Fall 2020). We used three dependent
variables to understand teachers personal experience while teaching during the pandemic:
Teacher work satisfaction is a three-item composite variable regarding the teachers Fall
2020 experience of liking the work environment, feeling other teachers were satisfied in the school,
and experiencing some form of disappointment (1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree), with
the last one being reverse coded. Higher scores indicated greater teacher satisfaction with their
work. The Cronbachs alpha reliabilit for this scale is 0.75.
Teacher burnout is an ordinal variable that approximates how the feeling of burnout was a
concern for the teacher (1=not a concern right now and 4=major concern).
Teacher likelihood of leaving job is a dichotomous variable coded as 1 if the teacher
answered he/she was unlikely to leave before the COVID-19 pandemic but was likely to leave the
job by the end of the current academic year. We emphasize that this was specifically asked and
linked to their experience during the COVID-19 pandemic in Fall of 2020 when vaccines were
still not available.
Organizational factors as predictors. Different organizational factors like teacher support,
decision satisfaction, and instructional mode may influence how teachers feel about their work.
Thus, we used these as independent variables to predict teacher satisfaction. First, we used the
number of unique organizational supports to proxy for the help extended by school organizations.

13
For this variable, we used the number of trainings during summer 2020 received by the teacher in
the following domains: student engagement, social-emotional wellbeing, learning management
platforms, and parent engagement. These four domains were also used in an analysis of how they
independently relate to the teacher satisfaction/ burnout variables. Second, we had a five-point
Likert-scale variable for teachers satisfaction with district and school decisions during the 2020-
2021 academic year (1=highly dissatisfied and 5=highly satisfied). Third, we had categorical
variables for the form of instruction during Autumn 2020: (1) Fully remote instruction means that
the large majority or all of the students do not meet physically in school. (2) Hybrid model means
that the large majority or all of the students receive some in-person instruction and some remote
instruction. (3) Fully in-person instruction means that teachers meet majority or all of their students
each school day.
Control variables.  We included several covariates in the analyses, inclusive of the
teachers average hours worked during the week, the school location (urban, suburban, town, and
rural), the school size (small, medium, large), and whether the school was considered a minority-
serving school with at least 50% of the student population being Black, Hispanic and/or on free-
and-reduced priced lunch.
Data Analysis
The present research asks what specific organizational factors were associated with the dependent
variables of teacher satisfaction, burnout, and/or likelihood of leaving their job during the 2020
pandemic. Thus, we first estimated linear regression models that included the three organizational
variables (number of organizational supports, satisfaction with organizational decision, and mode
of instruction) as separate predictors of teacher satisfaction, all of which included controls for the
teachers amount of work and school tpe. Since we were also interested in how organiational

14
factors were linked not only to teacher satisfaction but also to teacher dissatisfaction, we created
models with teacher burnout and likelihood of leaving the job as dependent variables. For the
teacher burnout outcome, we used a similar linear model as the teacher work satisfaction model.
For the likelihood of leaving the job, we used a logistic regression model where we calculated the
odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval.
To further probe if specific organizational supports or trainings were associated with
teacher satisfaction/ burnout, we also estimated models for how predictive a specific type of
support (e.g., student engagement training) is on the three dependent variables for teacher
satisfaction or burnout.
Lastly, satisfaction with organizational decisions may be associated with school factors,
and thus, we investigated how the mode of instruction and type of school were predictive of
teachers satisfaction with the school and/or districts decisions. We used both an ordinal and
dichotomous outcome for this decision satisfaction variable. While multilevel models would have
been appropriate, the present data structure did not permit this since teachers were not clustered
by schools and no information was available about the kinds of schools where teachers worked.
Results
Descriptive statistics for the measures of teacher satisfaction/burnout and organizational factors
are provided in Table 1. The table also includes the percentage of teachers who were in the different
school types, locations, and sizes. Noteworthy is the fact that nearly 1 in 5 teachers were more
likely to leave their job after the 2020-2021 academic year even as this was unlikely before the
COVID-19 pandemic. Teacher burnout was also a major concern with the mean being 3.23 out of
4; 57.77 percent of teachers said that burnout was a major concern for them. There were also wide

15
variations in terms of the instructional modality as 40 percent of teachers were teaching remotely,
a similar percentage were doing hybrid instruction, and 20 percent were doing in-person classes.
<PLACE TABLE 1 and TABLE 2 NEAR HERE>
Table 2 presents correlations between the main variables of teacher satisfaction/burnout
and organizational factors. From these correlations, more organizational supports and higher
satisfaction with organizational decisions were associated with higher teacher work satisfaction
and lower teacher burnout. The number of organizational supports were also correlated with the
satisfaction with school organizational decisions.
What organizational factors were linked with teacher satisfaction?
Teachers who received more organizational supports were also more satisfied with their work
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarl, teachers who found their schools or districts decision
satisfactory were also more satisfied with their work. Controlling for work and school factors,
Table 3 illustrates that each additional organizational support was associated with a 0.12-point
increase in teacher work satisfaction (p < 0.001) while each unit increase in decision satisfaction
was associated with a 0.22-point increase in work satisfaction (p < 0.001).
<INSERT TABLE 3 NEAR HERE>
Although we had hypothesized that teachers who were asked to teach in person were less
satisfied given the health risks of this instructional mode, those who taught in-person actually had
higher teacher work satisfaction ratings, on average, than those who did fully remote instruction
(

= 0.18, p < 0.01). No significant association, however, was seen between doing hybrid
instruction and teacher work satisfaction.

16
What organizational factors were linked with burnout and likelihood of leaving the job?
To the extent that organizational factors can be associated with teacher satisfaction, these may also
correlate with reduced burnout, even during a health crisis such as COVID-19. Table 4 presents
estimates highlighting the negative association between organizational factors and teacher
burnout. Having more organizational supports was associated with reduced teacher burnout, on
average by 0.06 points (p < 0.05), and being satisfied with the schools decision was associated
with lower burnout, on average by 0.13 points (p < 0.001). Interestingly, in-person instruction was
also associated with better outcomes in terms of decreased teacher burnout (

= -0.24, p < 0.01).
<INSERT TABLE 4 NEAR HERE>
In addition to burnout, it is important to determine whether organizational factors influence
the odds of teachers thinking about leaving their jobs. For this variable, only satisfaction with
organizational decisions was significantly associated with reduced odds of leaving the job (OR
0.59, p < 0.001). The number of organizational supports and the mode of instruction were not
associated with greater or lesser odds of teachers leaving the job.
What specific organizational supports were linked with teacher satisfaction/ burnout?
Since the number of organizational supports was positively associated with teacher satisfaction
and negatively associated with burnout, we investigate the specific types of supports predictive of
such association. Table 5 shows that all organizational supports were independently associated
with higher teacher satisfaction. However, only the parent engagement training was associated
with reduced teacher burnout (

= -0.27, p < 0.01) and no unique organizational support was
associated with reduced odds of leaving the job.
<INSERT TABLE 5 NEAR HERE>

17
What contexts were associated with teacher satisfaction with organizational decisions?
Table 6 presents estimates for predictors of teachers satisfaction with the school or districts
organizational decisions. Compared with those doing remote instruction, those who taught in-
person were, on average, more satisfied with their school or districts decisions (0.29, p < 0.05).
However, those who did hybrid instruction were, on average, less satisfied than those who did
fully remote instruction (-0.19, p < 0.05). Interestingly, compared to being in an urban location,
being in a town was associated with higher satisfaction with organizational decision (0.49, p <
0.01), which may be attributed to lesser administrative oversight in these schools as compared to
urban schools.
<INSERT TABLE 6 NEAR HERE>
Compared to teachers who were teaching remotely, those who were teaching in-person had
increased odds of saing that the were satisfied or highl satisfied with their school or districts
decisions (OR 1.50, p < 0.05). Similarly, those in town schools had twice the odds than those in
urban schools to comment that they were satisfied or highly satisfied with the organizational
decisions in their school or district (OR 2.04, p < 0.01).
Discussion and conclusions
The challenges of the teaching profession and the inequalities in the education system have only
been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Alves et al., 2021; Hamilton et al., 2020). This
research, in particular, focused on the experience of teacher satisfaction and burnout, which may
have consequences for the instruction and care teachers can extend to their students. When such
important teacher motivational factors are unaddressed, their consequences may be far-reaching
as to include worse instruction (Banerjee et al., 2017; Herman et al., 2018), emotional toll (Chang,
2009), and leaving the teaching profession (OBrien et al., 2008). Since the literature suggests the

18
importance of organizational factors for worker satisfaction (Malinen & Savolainen, 2016), we
focused on how organizational decisions and supports predicted teacher satisfaction during a crisis,
and found four key insights from our analyses.
First, we consider the present crises in education regarding the level of teacher satisfaction/
burnout and the COVID-19 pandemic, which although coming from different sources, are
nonetheless interrelated. With more than half of the teachers feeling burnout and close to a fifth
intending to leave their job after the academic year (see Table 1), we argue that the teaching
profession is not immune to social disruptions. Often, research simply looks at the burnout teachers
experience because of factors in the school (Bottiani et al., 2019; Cano-García et al., 2005) but
what this research contributes is a perspective for how teachers burnout can itself interact and be
intensified by societal crises. Similar to research about teachers in crises (Botou et al., 2017;
Roman, 2020), we highlight how they experience burnout not just from the difficulties inherent in
the teaching profession, but also from societal changes and disruption.
Second, intentional organizational supports and decisions still matter for teachers, even and
especially during times of societal crises (see Tables 3 to 6). Although the effects of the pandemic
were wide-reaching and assumed to be wholly negative (Daniel, 2020; Pfefferbaum & North,
2020), organiational factors can still wield its influence on teachers lives. In particular, we found
that more organizational supports and higher satisfaction with organizational decisions were
associated with increased teacher satisfaction, decreased burnout, and decreased likelihood of
leaving the job. Most studies on teacher burnout focus on their experiences solely in school without
taking into account wider societal changes, and these studies find that organizational factors such
as school climate and culture predict teachers satisfaction (Cano-García et al., 2005; Grayson &
Alvarez, 2008). We contribute to this literature by showing how organizational factors remain

19
consequential for teachers satisfaction, even in the face of large societal crises in public health,
racial justice, and politics.
Third, teachers who taught in person were more satisfied on average than those who taught
remotelyin terms of personal work satisfaction and their satisfaction with the school or districts
decisions (see Tables 4 & 6). This comes as an unexpected finding, given that man teachers
unions have been vocal critics against schools phsical reopening (DeAngelis & Makridis, 2020).
The reasons for this finding are not clear. It may be that schools that have in-person instruction
may also have low community transmission (Dibner et al., 2020), which contribute to greater
overall satisfaction. Teachers who use remote instruction may also find this modality physically
taxing and demanding, as documented by other researchers (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020; Lightner
& Lightner-Laws, 2016). Another potential explanation is that these places with in-person
instruction are qualitatively different from those that remained remote, even prior to the pandemic.
Given how the current data did not support investigating these deeper reasons, qualitative studies
may supplement the current research to understand why this preference for in-person instruction
remains.
Fourth, the research highlights the importance of attending to the personal wellbeing and
satisfaction of teachers as a factor to consider when attending to societal crises. Many of the studies
and decisions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic focus on aspects such as equitable instruction
and health concerns (Z. D. Berger et al., 2020; Martin & Sorensen, 2020). However, an important
factor that also needs consideration is the motivation of teachers who are the primary implementers
and the closest actors to students. We emphasie that organiations intentional actions and
supportsand workers satisfaction with themare important predictors of greater satisfaction
and reduced burnout.

20
Implications
A practical implication of this research is for school organizations to increase and be transparent
with the supports being provided and to engage their staff regarding how they feel about these
decisions and supports. This is particularly important when the source of the crisis is exogenous
to the organization since workers can be reassured that the decisions do not only take into account
organizational sustainability but also their own satisfaction and wellbeing (Simola, 2005). Thus,
the present research contributes to understanding the crisis of teacher burnout exacerbated by the
COVID-19 pandemic, and how organizational decisions and supports matter in attending to these
crises. The results indicate how the physical mode of instruction can affect teacher satisfaction,
and more generally, how the intentionality of school organizations in a time of societal crisis can
be consequential for teachers satisfaction and wellbeing.
Limitations
Despite these contributions and insights, a number of limitations have to be mentioned as well.
One such limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the data, which constrains any causal
explanation for the relationships between organizational factors and teacher satisfaction. The study
also falls short of explaining why in-person instruction was associated with greater teacher
satisfaction. As said previously, this can be investigated through qualitative research regarding
how teachers view and experience different modalities of teaching during the pandemic. A third
limitation is that the measures of organizational supports were those mentioned by the teachers
rather than those reported by schools. This is important since not all supports are evident for
teachers. Future research may look at how other organizational factors are associated with teachers'
subjective feelings about their work and the school organization.

21
Conclusion
The present research contributes to an understanding of how organizations can attend to the
challenges of an internal crisis of teacher burnout exacerbated by an external crisis of a global
pandemic. The stud highlights that teachers experiences of work satisfaction and burnout are
influenced not only by endogenous factors inherent in the work of teaching, but also exogenous
factors such as the crisis of COVID-19. It highlights that these internal and external crises may be
addressed by organizational factors such as organizational supports and satisfactory decisions,
particularly those that recognize and address the emotional and practical concerns with teaching
during the pandemic. Finally, we highlight how organizations must consider the sustainability not
only of the organizational capital but also of the human capital, necessary in the work of
instruction.

22
References
Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges
and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 113.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
Alves, R., Lopes, T., & Precioso, J. (2021). Teachers well-being in times of Covid-19
pandemic: Factors that explain professional well-being. IJERI: International Journal of
Educational Research and Innovation, 15, 203217. https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.5120
Auger, K. A., Shah, S. S., Richardson, T., Hartley, D., Hall, M., Warniment, A., Timmons, K.,
Bosse, D., Ferris, S. A., Brady, P. W., Schondelmeyer, A. C., & Thomson, J. E. (2020).
Association Between Statewide School Closure and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality
in the US. JAMA, 324(9), 859. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.14348
Awa, W. L., Plaumann, M., & Walter, U. (2010). Burnout prevention: A review of intervention
programs. Patient Education and Counseling, 78(2), 184190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.04.008
Azevedo, J. P., Hasan, A., Goldemberg, D., Iqbal, S. A., & Geven, K. (2020). Simulating the
Potential Impacts of COVID-19 School Closures on Schooling and Learning Outcomes:
A Set of Global Estimates. The World Bank.
http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-9284
Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., Davis, S. J., Kost, K. J., Sammon, M. C., & Viratyosin, T. (2020). The
Unprecedented Stock Market Impact of COVID-19 (Working Paper No. 26945). National
Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w26945
Banerjee, N., Stearns, E., Moller, S., & Mickelson, R. A. (2017). Teacher Job Satisfaction and
Student Achievement: The Roles of Teacher Professional Community and Teacher

23
Collaboration in Schools. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 203241.
https://doi.org/10.1086/689932
Berger, L., Berger, N., Bosetti, V., Gilboa, I., Hansen, L. P., Jarvis, C., Marinacci, M., & Smith,
R. (2020). Uncertainty and Decision-Making During a Crisis: How to Make Policy
Decisions in the COVID-19 Context? (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3647188). Social
Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3647188
Berger, Z. D., Evans, N. G., Phelan, A. L., & Silverman, R. D. (2020). Covid-19: Control
measures must be equitable and inclusive. British Medical Journal, 368.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1141
Botou, A., Mylonakou-Keke, I., Kalouri, O., & Tsergas, N. (2017). Primar School Teachers
Resilience during the Economic Crisis in Greece. Psychology, 08(01), 131.
https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2017.81009
Bottiani, J. H., Duran, C. A. K., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2019). Teacher stress and burnout
in urban middle schools: Associations with job demands, resources, and effective
classroom practices. Journal of School Psychology, 77, 3651.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.002
Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020, April 1). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of
COVID-19 on education. VoxEU. https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-education
Cano-García, F. J., Padilla-Muñoz, E. M., & Carrasco-Ortiz, M. Á. (2005). Personality and
contextual variables in teacher burnout. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(4),
929940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.018

24
Chang, M.-L. (2009). An Appraisal Perspective of Teacher Burnout: Examining the Emotional
Work of Teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193218.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y
Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing educators for the time of COVID 
and beyond. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457465.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1816961
DeAngelis, C., & Makridis, C. (2020). Are School Reopening Decisions Related to Union
Influence? (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3684867). Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3684867
Dibner, K. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Christakis, D. A. (2020). Reopening K-12 Schools
During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Report From the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, online first, 1
2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.14745
Dicke, T., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Guo, J., Riley, P., & Waldeyer, J. (2020). Job satisfaction
of teachers and their principals in relation to climate and student achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 112(5), 10611073. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000409
Diliberti, M., & Kaufman, J. H. (2020). Will This School Year Be Another Casualty of the
Pandemic?: Key Findings from the American Educator Panels Fall 2020 COVID-19
Surveys. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-
4.html

25
Donohue, J. M., & Miller, E. (2020). COVID-19 and School Closures. JAMA, 324(9), 845847.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.13092
Farber, B. A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher. Jossey-
Bass.
Galea, S., & Abdalla, S. M. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemic, Unemployment, and Civil Unrest:
Underlying Deep Racial and Socioeconomic Divides. JAMA, 324(3), 227228.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.11132
Golberstein, E., Wen, H., & Miller, B. F. (2020). Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and
Mental Health for Children and Adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456
Goldberg, E. (2020, October 5). What Its Like to Be a Teacher in 2020 America. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/teachers-covid-schools-pandemic.html
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A
mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 13491363.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., & Diliberti, M. (2020). Teaching and Leading Through a
Pandemic: Key Findings from the American Educator Panels Spring 2020 COVID-19
Surveys. Rand Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-2.html
Haynes, M., Maddock, A., & Goldrick, L. (2014). On the Path to Equity: Improving the
Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers. Alliance for Excellent Education, MetLife
Foundation. https://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/path-to-equity/

26
Helou, M. E., Nabhani, M., & Bahous, R. (2016). Teachers views on causes leading to their
burnout. School Leadership & Management, 36(5), 551567.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247051
Herman, K. C., Hickmon-Rosa, J., & Reinke, W. M. (2018). Empirically Derived Profiles of
Teacher Stress, Burnout, Self-Efficacy, and Coping and Associated Student Outcomes.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 90100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717732066
Hoover, A. G., Heiger-Bernays, W., Ojha, S., & Pennell, K. G. (2020). Balancing incomplete
COVID-19 evidence and local priorities: Risk communication and stakeholder
engagement strategies for school re-opening. Reviews on Environmental Health, 1(ahead-
of-print). https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2020-0092
Hultell, D., Melin, B., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2013). Getting personal with teacher burnout: A
longitudinal study on the development of burnout using a person-based approach.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 7586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.007
Iancu, A. E., Rusu, A., Mroiu, C., Pcurar, R., & Maricuoiu, L. P. (2018). The Effectiveness of
Interventions Aimed at Reducing Teacher Burnout: A Meta-Analysis. Educational
Psychology Review, 30(2), 373396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9420-8
Jesus, S. N. de, & Lens, W. (2005). An Integrated Model for the Study of Teacher Motivation.
Applied Psychology, 54(1), 119134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00199.x
Johari, J., Yean Tan, F., & Tjik Zulkarnain, Z. I. (2018). Autonomy, workload, work-life balance
and job performance among teachers. International Journal of Educational Management,
32(1), 107120. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0226

27
Kim, L. E., & Asbur, K. (2020). Like a rug had been pulled from under ou: The impact of
COVID-19 on teachers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 10621083.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12381
Kim, W. H., Ra, Y.-A., Park, J. G., & Kwon, B. (2017). Role of burnout on job level, job
satisfaction, and task performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
38(5), 630645. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2015-0249
Korkmaz, G., & Toraman, C. (2020). Are We Ready for the Post-COVID-19 Educational
Practice? An Investigation into What Educators Think as to Online Learning.
International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4, 293309.
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.110
Lancker, W. V., & Parolin, Z. (2020). COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: A social
crisis in the making. The Lancet Public Health, 5(5), e243e244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30084-0
Lee, J. (2020). Mental health effects of school closures during COVID-19. The Lancet Child &
Adolescent Health, 4(6), 421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30109-7
Lightner, C. A., & Lightner-Laws, C. A. (2016). A blended model: Simultaneously teaching a
quantitative course traditionally, online, and remotely. Interactive Learning
Environments, 24(1), 224238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.841262
Loonstra, B., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2009). Feelings of existential fulfilment and burnout
among secondary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 752757.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.01.002

28
Malinen, O.-P., & Savolainen, H. (2016). The effect of perceived school climate and teacher
efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A longitudinal study.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 144152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.012
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020). School District Responses to the COVID-19
Pandemic: Rnd 1, Diic Iniial Rene. American Enterprise Institute.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED606200
Maricuoiu, L. P., Sava, F. A., & Butta, O. (2016). The effectiveness of controlled interventions
on emploees burnout: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 89(1), 127. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12099
Martin, E. G., & Sorensen, L. C. (2020). Protecting the Health of Vulnerable Children and
Adolescents During COVID-19Related K-12 School Closures in the US. JAMA Health
Forum, 1(6), e200724e200724. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0724
Masonbrink, A. R., & Hurley, E. (2020). Advocating for Children During the COVID-19 School
Closures. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-1440
Menon, M. E., Papanastasiou, E., & Zembylas, M. (2008). Examining the Relationship of Job
Satisfaction to Teacher and Organisational Variables: Evidence from Cyprus.
International Studies in Educational Administration, 36(3), 7586.
Mheidly, N., Fares, M. Y., & Fares, J. (2020). Coping With Stress and Burnout Associated With
Telecommunication and Online Learning. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 574969.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.574969
OBrien, P., Goddard, R., & Keeffe, M. (2008). Burnout confirmed as a viable explanation for
beginning teacher attrition. In P. L. Jeffery (Ed.), Proceedings of Australian Association

29
for Research in Education Annual Conference (AARE 2007). Australian Association for
Research in Education. http://www.aare.edu.au/07pap/obr07567.pdf
Olcum, D., & Titrek, O. (2015). The Effect of School Administrators Decision-Making Styles
on Teacher Job Satisfaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 19361946.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.575
Ouellette, R. R., Frazier, S. L., Shernoff, E. S., Cappella, E., Mehta, T. G., Maríñez-Lora, A.,
Cua, G., & Atkins, M. S. (2018). Teacher Job Stress and Satisfaction in Urban Schools:
Disentangling Individual-, Classroom-, and Organizational-Level Influences. Behavior
Therapy, 49(4), 494508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2017.11.011
Pfefferbaum, B., & North, C. S. (2020). Mental Health and the Covid-19 Pandemic. New
England Journal of Medicine, 383(6), 510512. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2008017
RAND American Educator Panel. (2020a). 2020 COVID-19 Distance Learning Survey:
Principals and Teachers. Rand Corporation.
RAND American Educator Panel. (2020b). 2020 Fall COVID-19 Distance Learning Survey.
Rand Corporation.
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). Schooling disrupted, schooling rethought: How the
Covid-19 pandemic is changing education. Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
https://globaled.gse.harvard.edu/files/geii/files/education_continuity_v3.pdf
Richards, J. (2012). Teacher Stress and Coping Strategies: A National Snapshot. The
Educational Forum, 76(3), 299316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2012.682837

30
Roman, T. (2020). Supporting the Mental Health of Preservice Teachers in COVID-19 through
Trauma-Informed Educational Practices and Adaptive Formative Assessment Tools.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 473481.
Sarafidou, J., & Chatziioannidis, G. (2013). Teacher participation in decision making and its
impact on school and teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2),
170183. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311297586
Shen, J., Gao, X., & Xia, J. (2017). School as a loosely coupled organization? An empirical
examination using national SASS 200304 data. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 657681.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216628533
Simola, S. (2005). Concepts of Care in Organizational Crisis Prevention. Journal of Business
Ethics, 62(4), 341353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-3069-9
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Still motivated to teach? A study of school context
variables, stress and job satisfaction among teachers in senior high school. Social
Psychology of Education, 20(1), 1537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9363-9
Sokal, L., Trudel, L. E., & Babb, J. (2020). Canadian teachers attitudes toward change, efficacy,
and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational
Research Open, 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100016
Sutherland, I. E. (2017). Learning and growing: Trust, leadership, and response to crisis. Journal
of Educational Administration, 55(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2015-0097

31
Taylor, D. L., & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision Participation and School Climate as Predictors
of Job Satisfaction and Teachers Sense of Efficac. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 63(3), 217230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1995.9943810
Toropova, A., Myrberg, E., & Johansson, S. (2020). Teacher job satisfaction: The importance of
school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educational Review, 0(0), 127.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247
Trinidad, J. E. (2020). Equity, engagement, and health: School organisational issues and
priorities during COVID-19. Journal of Educational Administration and History, online
first, 114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2020.1858764
Vegas, E., & Winthrop, R. (2020). Beyond reopening schools: How education can emerge
stronger than before COVID-19. Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/beyond-reopening-schools-how-education-can-
emerge-stronger-than-before-covid-19/
Viner, R. M., Bonell, C., Drake, L., Jourdan, D., Davies, N., Baltag, V., Jerrim, J., Proimos, J., &
Darzi, A. (2020). Reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic: Governments
must balance the uncertainty and risks of reopening schools against the clear harms
associated with prolonged closure. Archives of Disease in Childhood.
https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-319963
Wodon, Q. (2020). COVID-19 Crisis, Impacts on Catholic Schools, and Potential Responses |
Part 1: Developed Countries with Focus on the United States. Journal of Catholic
Education, 23(1), 1350.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics
Mean/
Percentage
SD
Teacher satisfaction/ burnout
Teacher work satisfaction (1-4)
2.79
0.77
Teacher burnout (1-4)
3.23
0.93
Teacher leaving job (percentage)
17.43
Organizational factors
Number of organizational
supports (0-4)
2.11
1.29
Satisfaction with organizational
decision (1-5)
3.06
1.20
School mode of instruction (percentage)
Remote instruction
40.62
Hybrid instruction
39.21
In-person instruction
20.17
Controls
Teachers' weekly work hours
46.70
14.97
School type (percentage)
Urban schools
28.27
Suburban schools
40.51
Town schools
9.68
Rural schools
21.54
Small schools
17.53
Medium schools
26.48
Large schools
55.98
Minority-serving schools
54.85
Number
1,061
Source: 2020 Fall COVID-19 Distance Learning Survey, RAND American
Educator Panels, n = 1,061
Note: The table presents the percentage who belong to the category or the mean
value for the variable with standard deviations (SD) in the second column.

33
Table 2: Correlations table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Teacher work satisfaction
1.00
2
Teacher burnout
-0.30***
1.00
3
Teacher leaving job
-0.27***
0.21***
1.00
4
Organizational supports
0.26***
-0.12***
-0.09**
1.00
5
Org decision satisfaction
0.39***
-0.19***
-0.23***
0.24***
1.00
6
Fully remote instruction
0.07*
0.05
-0.04
0.07*
0.01
1.00
7
Hybrid instruction
-0.02
0.00
0.03
0.01
-0.11**
-0.66***
1.00
8
Fully in-person instruction
0.10***
-0.07*
0.00
-0.10**
0.12**
-0.42***
-0.40***
1.00
Source: 2020 Fall COVID-19 Distance Learning Survey, RAND American Educator Panels, n = 1,061
Notes: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 3. Estimates on the relationship between organizational factors and teacher work satisfaction during COVID-19
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Organizational factors
Number of
organizational supports
0.16***
(0.02)
0.12***
(0.02)
Satisfaction with
organizational decision
0.25***
(0.02)
0.22***
(0.02)
School mode of instruction
Remote instruction (reference)
Hybrid instruction
0.03
(0.06)
0.09
(0.05)
In-person instruction
0.22**
(0.08)
0.18**
(0.07)
Controls
Teachers' weekly work hours
(by 10 hours)
-0.03
(0.01)
-0.03
(0.02)
-0.02
(0.01)
-0.03
(0.02)
-0.02
(0.02)
School factors
Urban school (reference)
Suburban school
0.02
(0.06)
0.02
(0.05)
-0.01
(0.05)
0.01
(0.06)
-0.02
(0.06)
Town school
0.19*
(0.09)
0.17
(0.09)
0.06
(0.08)
0.16
(0.09)
0.03
(0.08)
Rural school
0.01
(0.08)
0.03
(0.08)
-0.05
(0.07)
-0.05
(0.08)
-0.06
(0.07)
Small school (reference)
Medium school
0.07
(0.08)
0.10
(0.07)
0.10
(0.07)
0.09
(0.08)
0.13
(0.07)
Large school
-0.06
(0.07)
-0.06
(0.07)
-0.02
(0.07)
-0.02
(0.07)
0.01
(0.07)
Minority-serving school
-0.14**
(0.05)
-0.14**
(0.05)
-0.12**
(0.05)
-0.12*
(0.05)
-0.11*
(0.05)
Intercept
3.01***
(0.12)
2.67***
(0.12)
2.21***
(0.14)
2.92***
(0.13)
1.96***
(0.14)
R-squared
0.022
0.094
0.171
0.033
0.212
Source: 2020 Fall COVID-19 Distance Learning Survey, RAND American Educator Panels, n = 1,061
Note: The table presents regression coefficients for the association between organizational factors/decisions and the work
satisfaction of teachers during Fall 2020/ COVID-19 pandemic. Controls include number of hours worked, school location, school
size, and minority-serving institutions. Standard errors are written in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

35
Table 4. Estimates on the relationship between organizational factors and teacher satisfaction/burnout
Teacher Work
Satisfaction
Teacher
Burnout
Likelihood of
Leaving Job
(OR)
Likelihood of
Leaving Job (95%
CI)
Organizational factors
Number of
organizational supports
0.12***
(0.02)
-0.06*
(0.03)
0.95
[0.82 - 1.11]
Satisfaction with
organizational decision
0.22***
(0.02)
-0.13***
(0.03)
0.59***
[0.51 - 0.69]
School mode of instruction
Remote instruction (reference)
Hybrid instruction
0.09
(0.05)
-0.09
(0.07)
1.14
[0.76 - 1.72]
In-person instruction
0.18**
(0.07)
-0.24**
(0.09)
1.17
[0.68 - 2.02]
Controls
Teachers' weekly work hours
(by 10 hours)
-0.02
(0.02)
0.13***
(0.02)
1.31***
[1.15 - 1.51]
School factors
Urban school (reference)
Suburban school
-0.02
(0.06)
-0.05
(0.07)
1.09
[0.68 - 1.73]
Town school
0.03
(0.08)
-0.07
(0.10)
1.01
[0.51 - 2.03]
Rural school
-0.06
(0.07)
-0.12
(0.09)
1.28
[0.74 - 2.19]
Small school (reference)
Medium school
0.13
(0.07)
-0.02
(0.08)
0.74
[0.43 - 1.28]
Large school
0.01
(0.07)
-0.06
(0.08)
0.72
[0.44 - 1.16]
Minority-serving school
-0.11*
(0.05)
-0.10
(0.06)
0.93
[0.63 - 1.37]
Intercept
1.96***
(0.14)
3.48***
(0.17)
0.29*
[0.10 - 0.86]
R-squared
0.212
0.106
0.087
0.087
Source: 2020 Fall COVID-19 Distance Learning Survey, RAND American Educator Panels, n = 1,061
Note: The table presents regression coefficients for the association between organizational factors/decisions and teacher
work satisfaction, burnout or likelihood of leaving the job during Fall 2020/ COVID-19 pandemic. Controls include number
of hours worked, school location, school size, and minority-serving institutions. Standard errors are written in parentheses.
OR = odds ratio; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Odds ratio greater than 1 means that the variable increases the
likelihood of teachers leaving the job while an odds ratio of less than means that the variable reduces this likelihood. *p
< .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

36
Table 5. Estimates on the relationship between organizational supports and teacher satisfaction/burnout
Teacher Work
Satisfaction
Teacher
Burnout
Likelihood of
Leaving Job (OR)
Likelihood of
Leaving Job (95% CI)
Organizational supports
Student engagement
training
0.14*
(0.07)
-0.11
(0.07)
0.93
[0.59 - 1.49]
Student social-emotional
wellbeing training
0.21**
(0.06)
-0.03
(0.07)
0.66
[0.42 - 1.02]
Learning management
platform training
0.15*
(0.07)
0.06
(0.07)
0.89
[0.56 - 1.39]
Parent engagement
training
0.13*
(0.06)
-0.27**
(0.09)
1.15
[0.72 - 1.53]
Intercept
2.67***
(0.05)
2.95***
(0.14)
0.08***
[0.03 - 0.20]
Controls included
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
R-squared
0.095
0.077
0.036
0.036
Source: 2020 Fall COVID-19 Distance Learning Survey, RAND American Educator Panels, n = 1,061
Note: The table presents regression coefficients for the association between different organizational supports and teacher
work satisfaction, burnout or likelihood of leaving the job during Fall 2020/ COVID-19 pandemic. All regressions
control for the number of hours worked, school location, school size, and minority-serving institutions. Standard errors
are written in parentheses. OR = odds ratio; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

37
Table 6. Predictors of teachers' satisfaction with district or school decisions
Satisfaction with
organizational decision
Odds of being satisfied or highly satisfied
with district/ school decisions
(1 = highly
dissatisfied; 5 = highly
satisfied)
Odds Ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
Mode of instruction
Remote instruction (reference)
Hybrid instruction
-0.19*
(0.09)
0.78
[0.57 - 1.06]
In-person instruction
0.29*
(0.12)
1.50*
[1.02 - 2.19]
School location
Urban school (reference)
Suburban school
0.10
(0.10)
1.25
[0.88 - 1.76]
Town school
0.49**
(0.14)
2.04**
[1.23 - 3.40]
Rural school
0.15
(0.11)
1.10
[0.72 - 1.66]
School size
Small school (reference)
Medium school
-0.09
(0.11)
0.92
[0.61 - 1.41]
Large school
-0.07
(0.11)
1.02
[0.70 - 1.50]
Minority-serving school
-0.04
(0.08)
0.94
[0.71 - 1.26]
Intercept
3.02***
(0.14)
0.48***
[0.29 - 0.79]
R-squared
0.042
0.019
0.019
Source: 2020 Fall COVID-19 Distance Learning Survey, RAND American Educator Panels, n = 1,061
Note: The table presents regression coefficients for the predictors of teacher's satisfaction with district or school
decisions. The first column uses an ordinal variable for teachers satisfaction with organiational decision while
the second and third columns uses a dichotomous variable for teacher satisfaction. Standard errors are written in
parentheses. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval are provided. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001