Are GCSEs changing for current Year 9?

[nomorehollyoaks]

My DS is in Year 9 and about to choose his options. I understand he has been told that the way GCSE results will be assessed is changing. Two key themes that I have gathered from what he has told me are (a) that in future GCSE results will be aggregated to produce a points score; and (b) that the results for a student's best 8 GCSEs will be particularly key. We have an options meeting at the school coming up soon, but in advance of that I'd be grateful for any information about how the system will work. In particular, is it correct that the best 8 GCSE results will be particularly key in some way? And if there is going to be some kind of new points system, how will that work?

TIA

What funding cuts would these be then?

The ongoing massive funding cuts to school sixth forms. On top of those, my school's maintenance budget was slashed by nearly 100k a couple of years ago leading to lots of redundancies.
And Cameron's latest announcement about education spending plans = more cuts.

samfreedman1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/what-do-conservative-spending-plans.html

Draylon my school used to do Stats in Y10 and maths in Y11 but we now do both maths and further maths in Y11. Stats just doesn't help bridge the gap to A-level and we were having problems with Y12s crashing and burning as they couldn't cope.

noble teachers could pay for thier own pensions - 16.4% from employer is very generous

Employer contributions aren't 16.4% for teachers, they are 14.1%. Yes it's generous, but they've scrapped the final salary pension and cut the value of our pensions significantly while also increasing our contributions but not our pay, so we're certainly not getting anywhere near as good a deal as we used to.

Noble If you read your link, one of the reasons given that costs are increasing is that employer contributions for teachers are going up to 16.4%, effectively giving you a 2.3% payrise.

You'd have a point carol if those extra employer contributions were to improve the pensions of those paying into them - sadly they're not!

titchy They are increasing because the pension promises have previously been underfunded. So previously teachers have been earning more than they thought.

Exactly - as with other public sector pensions they cannot meet their current liabilities ie the current pensioners so contributions have to increase. But the increase in contributions doesn't benefit those currently working as their future pensions have been eroded. Not entirely sure how you can say this is equivalent to a 2% pay rise!

titchy That is incorrect. the monies paid go to general govt funds, but the calculation is based on a notional asset and notional actuarial liability, so calculated exactly as a private sector salary based retirement scheme.
The contributions are based on an actuarial valuation, so are payments related to the current employees earning thier pension and payments to current pensioners is irrelevent.
In order to pay the pensions promised, the employer needs to pay more into the scheme as people are living longer. The cost of employing a teacher has therfore increased.
If you are comparing salaries across sectors, as teachers are wont to do, they you need to include the cost of the pension. If someone with a DC scheme wanted to maintain thier pension, they would have to pay more in, so reducing take home pay. Teachers have had this extra paid in by the employers, so is effectivly a pay rise.

Carol, but thousands has been knocked off the value of our pensions. The value of our pensions is not being maintained. In addition, our contributions have increased substantially. This can only be seen as an effective pay cut.

Carol teachers pay x% of their salary to the TPS - that money was supposed to be for a final salary pension. They now don't get a final salary pension, so they're paying the same but will get a smaller pension.

If you're an English teacher, GCSEs are always changing. Period.

We're not paying the same for a smaller pension, titchy, we are paying more for a smaller pension. Our contributions have increased.

I stand corrected noble (also a public sector pension payer now on a career average scheme rather than final salary, still paying the same )

No - your employer is paying more into your scheme and your benefits are not being reduced. Future earnings will get a lower pension, but past benefits are not changing.
However, the reduction is due to living longer and applies to everyone.
The difference is your employer is paying more, when many others don't, so compared to other jobs, an effective payrise

That doesn't make any sense. How can you say that our benefits aren't being reduced but our future earnings will earn a lower pension and then call this lower pension a pay rise? We're not only physically earning less take-home pay due to increased contributions, but the increased contributions are buying us a shittier deal on retirement.

Saying that 'ooh, it could be worse' isn't making it a positive. If it could be -10, but actually it's only -8, then that's not a pay rise. It's just comparatively less of a pay cut.

It is a payrise compared to a private sector worker who would have to increase personal contributions as much as you and also make up the employers tab.
Or you could argue you were earning much more than you thought previously, but now you and the employer are having to pay for it.

Who is this private sector worker my lot is being compared to? Is he paid more than me? Does he get other benefits such as health insurance like I did when I worked in the private sector? What are his qualifications? I'd hate to be compared to some average private sector worker when I have e.g. a masters in maths and programming experience.

All I am saying is that increased employer pension contribution are a pay rise.

Only in some weird definition of pay rise where you end up getting less money.

Carol an increase in employers contributions can only be regarded as a pay rise if you get a better pension as a result - if you get a worse deal it's a pay cut as you then have to find the difference out of your own pocket to make up for the shortfall.

Have you thought about a job in government spin?