Joanne links to an article that mentions the rise in what's known as "alternative certification", a way of becoming a teacher without going through the traditional university ed school process.
I myself am a product of such an alternative certification program, Project Pipeline. Rather than going to school for a "5th year", complete with classes and student teaching, that California's state universities would require, I went through Pipeline and was an intern teacher. I had an intern credential (halfway between emergency and full credentials) and went to classes at nights and on weekend while holding down my teaching job and being a single father. I did that for two years. Additionally, because I did not get my math degree at a UC or CSU school, I had to take some rather difficult subject matter competency tests to show that I know the math I was to be credentialed to teach. My first credential expires this October, after 5 years.
Pipeline was nominally affiliated with Sac State, I think, but in a way I don't truly understand. Perhaps they just needed some legal "sponsor". There are school districts that have their own intern programs (Elk Grove here in Sacramento Country, and LA Unified come to mind). Then there's the ABCTE, which is trying to create a national certification but so far has been accepted in only a few states. Teach For America was big several years ago but they've certainly dropped off the radar screen.
I support these alternative programs. Speaking only of California's university programs here, teacher credentialing programs are old, clunky, out-of-date, outmoded, and extremely biased to a certain style of teaching and belief. They have not adapted to the times. I'm not convinced they prepare their teachers for anything other than the spouting of buzzwords. My fear is that it's not only California's schools that are like this, as I wrote about here.
There are too many calls for America's ed schools to be revamped to just ignore the problem.