does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in

highly qualified as defined by three attributes: (a) earn at least a bachelor’s degree, (b) qualify
for full certification in the state of teaching employment, and (c) demonstrate a high level of
knowledge in each core subject taught. Since virtually all teachers earn a bachelor’s degree, variability
in the attributes of a HQT turns on certification status and subject matter expertise—the
two main qualifications analyzed by this research.
Regarding full certification (i.e., excluding waivers, emergency certificates, and the like), we
have demonstrated with national data that beginning SETs and GETs with extensive preparation
in pedagogy and supervised teaching earned a much higher level of full certification than did
those with only some or no preparation. Extensive teacher preparation clearly mattered most in
satisfying this basic indicator of a HQT.
Regarding subject matter expertise, we have likewise shown that beginning GETs with extensive
preparation in pedagogy and supervised teaching were more likely to be teaching in the
field of their subject matter expertise than were those with only some or no such preparation. 4
Furthermore, both SETs and GETs with extensive preparation reported being better prepared to
teach assigned subject matter than did those with only some or no preparation. Extensive teacher
preparation clearly mattered (and was not a liability) in satisfying this basic indicator of a HQT.
Thus, when it comes to the two central components of the NCLB definition of a HQT (full
certification and subject matter expertise in one’s teaching assignment as represented by in-field
teaching 5 ), completing extensive preparation in pedagogy and supervised teaching contributed a
great deal to preparing qualified beginning SETs and GETs. Extensive preparation was also related
strongly to teacher reports of being well prepared to teach subject matter (also relevant to
the subject matter expertise component of a HQT) and in pedagogical skills. In these important
respects, the federal policy of de-emphasizing instruction in pedagogy and supervised teaching
may well be counterproductive in terms of producing a national force of HQTs. This is not to
imply that improvements in the character and quality of teacher preparation are not needed. On
4 Instead of defining a teaching field in terms of the disability status of students taught as is common in special education,
NCLB and IDEIA defines teaching field for all teachers (SETs included) in terms of subject matter taught,
and requires all teachers to demonstrate a high level of subject matter knowledge in each subject taught. Since we
instead defined in-field teaching for SETs in terms the correspondence between their major in special education and
their main teaching field defined by the disability status of students taught (the common definition used by Seastrom
et al., 2002), the meaning of in-field teaching for SETs does not conform to the NCLB definition and should not be
interpreted as such.
24