I discuss some of that experience here (in the context of the NYT piece).

Further, my wife is currently working in a non-teaching capacity at a local elementary school and has gleaned some anecdotal evidence that her experience is not unique.

My understanding is they started giving out the NCLB tests before getting all the kids certified, so surely the results from the first test should be included. And if a certified teacher sees their pass rate fall below x%, perhaps they should go back for further training or be encouraged to look for another job.

And in some schools these areas were notoriously easy to graduate with if you had the appropriate, uh, credentials.

The intended reason for California's policy was laudable: attract more blacks, Hispanics, etc. into teaching. It had the unfortunate secondary effect of letting people without basic qualification for teaching in, too.

Could some of these “veteran teachers” have been initially granted their credentials under that rubric?

I see no problem with teachers getting refresher courses on how to teach or testing their knowledge of their subject area. I have done it in many of my jobs including the military and IT field. Often the students put in more information than the instructors.

The teachers need to get off their high horse. After all isn’t it supposed to be about the children or is the teachers’ ego more important?

Indeed, one suspects that people on the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing have degrees in Education and actually resent people like Huyck and Whittier for proving that people who actually know their subjects are more effective teachers.

Why don't you give the people on the CCTC credit for knowing what makes a good teacher? They may actually know their subject (what makes a good teacher) better than Huyck and Whittier.