The Charity Commission has announced that it has appointed an Interim Manager to the Essex Islamic Academy, also known as Ripple Road Mosque.

The Commission has been investigating the charity since October 2017. The inquiry was announced in March of this year, after the conviction of Umar Ahmed Haque for preparing terrorist acts whilst employed at the charity; Mr Haque had previously pleaded guilty to disseminating terrorist material to children who attended the charity’s madrassah.

As part of its inquiry, the Commission is considering how Mr Haque was able to attempt to radicalise children, and what the trustees and others at the charity knew about this. The inquiry is also examining the level of supervision, due diligence and oversight the charity had over Mr Haque, and its adherence to safeguarding policies and procedures.

The Commission appointed Mr Jonathan Burchfield of Stone King LLP as Interim Manager (IM) on 8 June 2018 under section 76(3)(g) of the Charities Act 2011. The IM’s role is to implement safeguarding procedures, ensure all current trustees, relevant staff and relevant volunteers have understood safeguarding procedures and completed relevant training, and review the charity’s government document, and its financial controls and policies.

The IM assumes these duties at the exclusion of the charity’s trustees; however the latter retain control over the day-to-day running of the charity.

The Commission’s investigation continues.

It is the Commission’s intention, in accordance with its policy, to publish a report after it has concluded the inquiry, detailing what issues the inquiry looked at, what actions were undertaken and what the outcome was.

Reports of previous inquiries by the Commission are available on GOV.UK.

Notes to Editors

1. The Charity Commission is the regulator of charities in England and Wales.
2. The IM appointment is a temporary and protective power that will be reviewed at regular intervals. It will continue until the Commission makes a further Order for its variation or discharge.

Summary

On 23 October 2017, a passenger train collided with a parcel delivery van at Frognal Farm user worked level crossing, near Teynham, in Kent. The train was travelling at 89 mph (143 km/h). It did not derail, and no-one on the train was hurt, but the train was damaged by the impact. The van was severely damaged and the van driver suffered serious injuries.

The van driver was delivering a parcel to a property on the far side of the crossing. He initially went to an incorrect address, where he was given directions which involved going over the crossing to reach the correct address. The level crossing was equipped with power-operated gates, controlled by a button at the side of the approach road, and a telephone which vehicle drivers were required to use to contact the signaller to obtain permission to cross. Being unfamiliar with user worked crossings, the van driver did not notice the telephone and pressed the button to operate the gates. They opened, and so he returned to his van to drive across the crossing, believing it was safe to cross.

There were multiple signs associated with the crossing which were placed in a way that meant they did not stand out to the van driver. The van driver had been told that he needed to press a green button to open the gates at the crossing, and he was focused on locating this button. The fact that the gate opened when the button was pressed, coupled with the van driver’s previous experience of other types of level crossing, may have reinforced his view that it was safe to cross.

The RAIB has found that an underlying cause of the accident was that the system where authorised users are responsible for briefing visitors about the safe way to use private crossings, is unreasonable in present-day circumstances.

Recommendations

The RAIB has made four recommendations, the first directed to Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the Office of Rail and Road to improve the signage at private crossings and review the concept of authorised users. The second is directed to the Department for Transport and the Office of Rail and Road to change the law covering the signage at private crossings. The third is to Network Rail, to improve the safety of private crossings equipped with power operated gate opening equipment. The last is also directed to Network Rail, to review the way in which it collects and maintains data about regular users of private crossings, so that it can better communicate important information about crossing safety.

Simon French, Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents said:

“This accident, which came very close to killing a motorist, has shown up some significant weaknesses in the way that some level crossings have been managed over many years. User worked level crossings, where the user is responsible for operating gates themselves, are usually on rural, private roads. They are a legacy of agreements between railway companies and landowners, made at the time the railways were built in the nineteenth century. Today’s trains are more frequent and travel faster than the Victorian railway builders could ever dream of, and the risk to crossing users and people on trains at these level crossings is now one of the most significant that the railway has to manage.

“This type of crossing differs from public road crossings that many motorists are familiar with, in that the user is responsible for protecting themselves from being hit by a train while they cross. This is a concept which needs to be made very clear to the user, as the consequences of failing to understand it may be tragic. In this case, a green button labelled “press to operate crossing gates” created a belief that the gates would only open if it was safe. That was not the case, and the driver of the road vehicle was lucky to escape with his life. The signs that told him to telephone for permission before using the crossing were confusing and badly positioned. They included an unauthorised adaptation of a legally specified sign. This non-standard sign was created because the law has not kept up with technical developments, and there is no sign approved for use in connection with power operated gates. Fresh thinking is needed on how to tell an unfamiliar user what kind of crossing they have arrived at, what the hazards are, and what to do to be safe.

“The nineteenth-century approach to managing the use of private level crossings revolved round the concept of the authorised user, the person occupying the land or premises that the crossing gave access to. They were considered to be responsible for making sure that anyone who had a valid reason to visit them and needed to use the crossing was aware of how to cross safely. It’s doubtful whether this concept was ever really effective, and in today’s world of parcel deliveries by multiple couriers it just doesn’t work. We are recommending that, when reviewing the way it manages these crossings, Network Rail looks hard at how crossing users get information from the railway about how to cross safely.

“However, I believe that the vital lesson from this investigation is how important it is that each user worked crossing is managed in a way that takes into account the context in which it is used, and the needs and expectations of the people who may encounter it in the course of their everyday business. It is time for a fresh approach to this problem, for the sake of crossing users, train passengers and railway staff, who are all at risk.”

Notes to editors

1. The sole purpose of RAIB investigations is to prevent future accidents and incidents and improve railway safety. RAIB does not establish blame, liability or carry out prosecutions.
2. RAIB operates, as far as possible, in an open and transparent manner. While our investigations are completely independent of the railway industry, we do maintain close liaison with railway companies and if we discover matters that may affect the safety of the railway, we make sure that information about them is circulated to the right people as soon as possible, and certainly long before publication of our final report.
3. For media enquiries, please call 01932 440015.

Newsdate: 23 August 2018

Key points

1. Overall GCSE outcomes have remained stable in recent years and this trend continues this year.
2. Overall results for 16-year-olds in English language and mathematics are stable at grade 4 compared to last summer.
3. The variability in results within centres is similar to previous years suggesting that schools and colleges have responded well to the reforms. Even when there are no changes to qualifications, individual schools and colleges will see variation in their year-on-year results; this is normal.

Today (23 August 2018) we are publishing:

Background to GCSE reforms

This summer is the second year that reformed GCSEs graded 9 to 1 have been awarded. Reformed qualifications in 20 subjects were awarded for the first time this summer, in addition to the 3 reformed subjects that were awarded for the first time in 2017. Changes to the GCSEs reflect the government’s intention that the qualifications better prepare students for further study and work, are more stretching for the most able students, and remain accessible to the range of students who have traditionally taken GCSEs.

The new GCSEs are being phased in. This year about 90% of GCSE entries in England were for reformed GCSEs. By 2020 all GCSEs taken in England will be in line with this policy and will be graded 9 to 1.

Setting standards in GCSEs in 2018

We have explained our approach to setting standards in GCSEs this summer in our monitoring report. In the 2018 awards, exam boards used predictions based on students’ prior attainment at key stage 2 to guide the setting of grade boundaries. And, as in previous years, senior examiners have been involved in all awards. In the reformed GCSEs they were asked to check whether student work at the grade boundaries suggested by the statistics was at an acceptable standard for the grade (at grades 7, 4 and 1).

Overall GCSE outcomes

Overall, GCSE outcomes have remained stable in recent years, with only small changes in the cumulative percentage outcomes at grade 4/C and above. This is illustrated in the chart below, that shows the overall GCSE outcomes for 16-year-olds in England at grade 4/C and above between 2014 and 2018.

Overall GCSE outcomes for 16-year-olds in England at grade 4/C and above, 2014-2018

GCSE English language, English literature and mathematics

This is the second summer that reformed 9 to 1 GCSEs in English language, English literature and mathematics were awarded. Last summer post-16 students who were re-sitting English language and mathematics could either enter the reformed 9 to 1 qualifications or the legacy A* to G qualifications (there was no legacy resit opportunity in English literature). Because of this, the overall results (for all students) for the reformed 9 to 1 qualifications in English language and mathematics are lower in 2018 compared to last summer, because the cohort has changed. When only 16-year-olds are considered, the outcomes in the reformed 9 to 1 qualifications are broadly stable at grades 9, 7 and 4 compared to last summer. Where there are small changes in outcomes, these are due to changes in the ability of the cohort.

16-year-olds outcomes in GCSE 9 to 1 English language and mathematics

GCSE combined science

This summer reformed 9 to 1 GCSEs in the sciences were awarded for the first time. There is a new GCSE in combined science that replaces the legacy GCSEs in science and additional science. Combined science is worth 2 GCSEs and so students will get a double grade, from 9-9, 9-8, 8-8 through to 1-1. There are also reformed 9 to 1 GCSEs available in the three separate sciences – biology, chemistry, and physics. Some students therefore enter combined science, and other students enter the separate sciences. The proportion of students achieving grade 4 and above in the separate sciences is higher than the proportion achieving grades 4-4 and above in combined science, reflecting the different ability profiles of students taking separate sciences and combined science.

The move to a double GCSE in combined science from the legacy GCSE science and GCSE additional science makes year-on-year comparisons more challenging. In previous years some students taking GCSE science and GCSE additional science took both at the end of year 11, but a sizeable number of students instead took GCSE science in year 10 and GCSE additional science in year 11. For combined science we have therefore compared the outcomes at grades 7-7 or 4-4 and above, with the outcomes in science and additional science at grades A or C and above in 2017. In doing so, we have taken account of the different routes that students previously took through science and additional science. Our 2017 figures therefore include the outcomes for 16-year-olds in science and additional science in 2017, and the outcomes for students aged 15 and under in science in 2016. This shows that overall outcomes in combined science are similar to the outcomes in the legacy GCSE science and GCSE additional science at grades 7-7/A and 4-4/C.

16-year-olds outcomes in GCSE 9 to 1 combined science compared to science and additional science

* 15-year-olds and under only in 2016.

Grade 9 in reformed GCSE subjects

This is the second summer that grade 9 is awarded in reformed GCSE English language, English literature and mathematics, and the first award of grade 9 in 20 more subjects. Grade 9 is not the same as A*: it is a new grade, designed to recognise the very highest performing students, so there are fewer grade 9s than there were A*s. The new grade 8 straddles the top of the old A and the bottom of the old A*, so there is no direct comparison with A*. We have previously outlined the details of how grade 9 (or grade 9-9 in combined science) works.

This summer reformed 9 to 1 GCSE specifications were awarded in 23 subjects. On average, 16 year-old students in England took 7.46 reformed 9 to 1 GCSEs, so we have looked at the number of students taking at least 7 reformed 9 to 1 GCSEs who achieved a grade 9 in all of their 9 to 1 graded subjects. In total, there were 732 students that achieved this, 62% of whom were female and 38% of whom were male.

Grade boundaries

It is difficult to compare in a meaningful way grade boundaries between reformed and legacy qualifications, for several reasons. Maximum marks for the papers differ, the number of papers in a subject differs, and the type of assessment can be different. It is particularly difficult to compare reformed grade boundaries with those for the legacy qualifications for which there was a significant amount of non-exam assessment, or where the proportion of non-exam assessment has changed, since the grade boundaries on written papers may have been higher to compensate for relatively high performance on the coursework. This means it is difficult to make comparisons for the majority of reformed GCSEs awarded for the first time this summer, since most contain some non-exam assessment.

We have therefore only compared grade boundaries with last summer for reformed GCSE qualifications first awarded in summer 2017, since for these qualifications we are able to compare like-with-like. The following table shows a summary of the changes in subject level grade boundaries for these qualifications compared to summer 2017. Although exam papers are intended to be of the same demand as previous years, in practice, this is very difficult precisely to achieve, so grade boundaries change to take account of the demand of the papers.

Overall, the grade boundaries have increased slightly compared to last summer. On average, the boundaries have increased by 1.9 raw marks (or 0.6% of the maximum mark) at grade 7, and by 4.6 raw marks (or 1.8% of the maximum mark) at grade 4.

Changes in paper grade boundaries for reformed GCSEs first awarded in 2017

Post-16 outcomes in English language and mathematics

There has been an increase in post-16 entries for GCSE English language this summer (from 135,881 to 148,894), and a decrease in post-16 entries for GCSE mathematics (from 167,541 to 160,519). The table below shows the cumulative percentage outcomes for 17-year-olds, 18-year-olds, and students aged 19+ for English language and mathematics this summer compared to 2017 (these figures are based on data supplied to Ofqual by the exam boards on or before 15 August – while the data is not quite complete, any missing data is likely to be missing at random).

In 2017, some post-16 students sat the reformed GCSE 9 to 1 qualifications, and others sat the legacy GCSE A* to G qualifications. We have combined the data from these qualifications at grades 7/A and 4/C for 2017, and compared this to the outcomes at grades 7 and 4 this summer (when only reformed qualifications are available).

Post-16 outcomes in English language and mathematics