<p>It's been ten years or so since I've been directly involved, but when I was getting my own M Ed, it seemed to me that most people in my program were already certified, while those in the MAT program were pursuing certification plus the masters. </p>
<p>I did my undergrad work at a regional public university after getting an associates at a local community college. It would not be on anyone's list of top schools, and the attraction for me was simply that it was there, but it was known locally for a good teacher education program, and long before NCLB required majors in the certification areas in addition to the ed program requirements. It really was a so-called "no-name" university, but it offered a "guarantee" of sorts to school districts - if a first-year teacher proved inadequate, the university would take him/her back for remediation at no cost to the student. I don't know of it ever happening, but when I was interviewing for that first job, it was something administrators always mentioned as a positive. I say all that to say that I think having teacher training from a school known for that is important, but I don't think the overall prestige of the school would be so important. I do think it is important to have a strong transcript and especially important to have good enthusiastic recommendations from cooperating teachers and supervising professors (from the teaching experience). I was looking in a tight job market, and I think those are the things that got me interviews and offers from some of the most desireable districts in my areas.</p>
<p>In my state, we had a state-wide salary scale, and school districts received allocations from the state to cover salaries for basic education. The allocation was based on the state scale (number of teachers at each step for years of experience and education - BA, BA + 15, BA + 30, M Ed, M Ed + 15, etc). The extra pay for greater years' experience and education did not come out of the local district, so there was no reason for districts to prefer a less-educated candidate for budgetary reasons, and I think schools do prefer a more-educated staff in general, because it is one of the factors reported to the regional accrediting agencies. </p>
<p>When I started my grad degree, I considered my undergrad public but chose a well-regarded private instead (both offered evening programs). They were the only locally available options except a for-profit program that I didn't consider. Surprisingly, although undergrad tuition at the time was around 20K at the private (compared to $1400 at the public for undergrad), the costs for the grad programs were about the same. It seemed like a lot of money at the time, but it really was pretty reasonable. The programs were designed for working adults to finish within two years, so your daughter might consider something like that while also working; even if she were to get a job as an education paraprofessional, the experience would help her in her long-term job hunt. </p>
<p>One last thought - just as the current economy might be a factor for some districts deciding to hire a candidate without a grad degree versus one with the advanced degree, I would expect that future expenditures by the school district to cover employees' educational expenses might also be very limited. I think that, if the time required to get the advanced degree with certification is essentially the same as needed to get certification alone, it is better start out with the master's and a higher salary. That will pay off every year that your daughter teaches.</p>