Association of Open University Graduates

The Open University – Thriving in a New World
Or  “The times they are a`changing”

2011 Foundation Lecture by Will Swann

“The times they are a’changing”. So sang Bob Dylan in 1963. Times are also changing for Higher Education in the UK and this is going to have a profound effect on all parts of The Open University, going deeper than anything else since its inception in 1970. Will Swann, Director Student Service at The Open University, spoke to AOUG members to show us where these changes have come from, how the university is responding to the challenges and what will, and what will not, change.

Two separate, though inter-related documents at the heart of these changes, the Browne Report and the Government Spending Review of 2010, are the major policy drivers, and every area of Higher Education will be affected as £83 billion is cut from this area of expenditure.  The government will not protect Higher Education at the expense of other areas such as the emotive topics of Health and Housing and Defence, which would lead to much criticism of politicians, and so Higher Education has to be expendible.
A key point of the Browne Report is that funding should follow the student. Willetts, in the Spending Review, is concerned that the enormous involvement of universities in research, much of which is published, is not matched by the quality of teaching, and therefore the Government wants teaching to improve. Thus students can shop around and go where the teaching is best. Universities need to take note of this if they wish to survive in this new climate; some may not, and many, such as Vince Cable, think there is too much complacency in the Higher Education sector.

The current Open University fees of about £400 for a 60 point course and about £5000 for a BA do not cover the actual cost; the balance comes from 3 funding councils. 35 % comes from the Higher Education Funding council for England (HEFCE) and 80% of this funding will go by the end of 2012.  Government money is to be spent on loans to students; however it is estimated that only 72% of this will be paid back, so the new plan may actually cost more than the current system. But the immediate need is to cut the deficit across the board and fees must rise from the current £3000 to £6000 or even £9000. There is a level of uncertainty as to how students will react, although the rise from £1000 to £3000 had no impact on either student numbers or their social backgrounds.

Open University Vice Chancellor Martin Bean has won the battle for part-time student funding, and students studying as little as 30 points, or a quarter of a full time course, will be eligible for a student loan.  The Government has sought to establish a market for students based on the balance between teaching quality and price difference, but this has been undermined as most universities have already set their fees at £9000. The Open University needs to be financially sustainable, but what will students be willing to pay? Will fees of £5000 lead to floods of students and a different cross section of applicants?
The decision has been made to stick to the original mission of being a high quality, pan-UK provider of part-time, flexible study for adults. The open access policy will be retained as will the commitment to disadvantaged students. Rather than providing only for an elite, the university will continue to welcome all types of student.

At present many students do not get degrees. In the future it will be important for The Open University to ensure that students achieve their study goals. Also a quarter of Open University   students are studying for an equivalent or lower qualification ( ELQ ) and are thus not eligible for a loan, although OUSBA can help such students to spread the cost. Will this group be willing to pay increased fees?
Will Swann explained that loan repayment will depend on earnings.  Nothing needs to be repaid until the graduate earns over £21000, and after 30 years any remaining balance will be cancelled. But students will be more demanding and careers will become more of a focus. Current students will not pay the full costs as Government grants will continue for existing work. Consultants have been used to set a marketing strategy and have identified four groups that The Open University will appeal to. These are 1) employed people aged 24-49 with no degree who are considering Higher Education; 2) people not in employment who are wanting to improve their prospects; 3) over 50s who want increased knowledge and skills; 4) Employed postgraduates in pursuit of knowledge. “Then you’d better start swimming, Or you’ll sink like a stone”

To meet the challenges set by these changes, The Open University will need to communicate effectively. It will be providing Access courses as a low risk route into Higher Education as well as easier routes to the qualifications students want. To make sure students stay, support will be improved. There will be continuous improvements to the student experience. Some changes are already happening, with a new academic year and many courses starting in October. Some modules will run twice a year, which will even out the work load for staff. Efforts are being made to ensure that each student is aware what is entailed in the study journey. Each failure is important, help will be in place for students who are struggling as each one who fails is important.
The only danger is complacency! “And don’t speak too soon, For the wheels still in spin”

In answer to questions from the appreciative audience, Will Swann explained that the changes would have no effect on the BBC/OU link. Programmes have changed very much since the early morning broadcasts of course material, which now comes to the student on a CD; now  programmes as Coast and Wonders of the Universe are produced in partnership and appeal to a wide audience. The university pays the BBC for this work.
Another question related to students under 21. This is not one of the target groups; however there is a small but steadily growing number of young students.

AOUG Member gave lecture to OU History Society

AOUG Member, Keith Ward, a past member of the Executive Committee and still very active in the West Midlands Region, was invited to give a lecture to the OU History Society, of which he is also a member. This lecture was  entitled “The Seige
Of Sidney Street “and the summary of his talk is below.

January 2nd 2011 marked the centenary of the siege of Sidney Street in the East End of London involving an armed stand off between criminals, police and the military. The issues surrounding the siege are replicated in today’s society.

In the late 19th and early 20th century many revolutionaries from the Eastern Bloc fled to London to avoid persecution by the ruling elites in their homeland, fearing they would be imprisoned, tortured or executed. These immigrants including many from Latvia settled in the East End. They believed that England was a tolerant society, sympathetic to political dissidents and had a lax attitude towards immigrants. They were soon disillusioned having to take menial jobs, working long hours for little pay and living in slum properties. They were subjected to discrimination and verbal abuse.

In spite of these limitations the refugees were able to send money to Latvia to support their families and to finance the revolution, which they hoped would overthrow the governing regime and bring about an improvement in social conditions. The finance sent to further the revolution, was raised by devious and unscrupulous means and by   criminal activities, such as an attempted robbery at Harris’s jewellers in the City of London on the 10th December 1910.

On that day the occupant of a nearby property informed the police of a drilling noise coming from the vicinity of the jewellers. Officers quickly surrounded the building and as part of their investigations, Sergeants Bentley and Bryant visited no 11 Exchange Buildings, the rear of which was opposite the jewellers. There they spoke to George Gardstein who did not appear to understand English. The two Sergeants then entered the property and were subjected to a hail of gunfire, fatally injuring Bentley and wounding Bryant. Sergeant Tucker who went to the aid of his colleagues was also shot and died instantly.

Gardstein and four other people in the property made their escape from the rear of the building. As they did so, Constable Choate grappled with Gardstein in an attempt to arrest him, when a member of the gang, Max Smoller, opened fire killing the constable and unintentionally severely injuring Gardstein.Witnesses reported seeing three people fleeing the scene carrying a fourth person. It was dark and not possible for them to identify those involved. Gardstein was carried and dragged for some 30 minutes to 59 Grove Street, the home of Fritz Svaars, one of those escaping Exchange Buildings. Dr John Scanlon was then called to treat Gardstein and recommended that he should have his wounds attended to urgently in hospital. He refused to go and died shortly afterwards.

It became obvious that those fleeing were intending to rob the jewellers.  On the day before the attempted robbery Svaars purchased from Errico Malatesta’s workshop in Islington some 70 feet of rubber tubing, a cylinder of oxygen and a pressure gauge, to be used to blow open the safe. Asbestos sheeting was also obtained to be used as a heat shield during the explosion. Malatesta, an Italian national, had been a political conspirator and agitator in several countries before setting up his business in London around the turn of the century.   

 Gardstein and others had rented nos11 and 9 Exchange Buildings, the latter being separated from the jewellers by an intervening property.  The proposal was to drill through the party wall between the intervening property and the jewellers and this was the noise heard by the nearby resident. The rubber tubing was to provide a gas supply from no9 Exchange Buildings. The robbers ceased drilling and retreated to no 11 when they realised that the police had become involved. Acting on information from Dr. Scanlon the police discovered Garstein’s body at Grove Street and he was linked with the murders by a key found in his pocket for 11 Exchange Buildings. Also, similar chairs were found in both 59 Grove Street (Franz Svaars home) and 9 Exchange Buildings. Gardstein actually lived at 44 Gold Street, which was described as the Stepney “bomb factory,” in that it was found to contain incendiary devices, firearm specifications and anarchist literature.

On New Year’s Day, police investigating the murders were tipped off that Svaars and another member of the Latvian criminal fraternity, William Sokoloff, had taken refuge in the first floor flat occupied by Betsy Gershon at 100 Sidney Street. Mrs Gershon was arrested and she admitted that the two men were in her flat. Soon after midnight some 200 Metropolitan police officers, mainly unmarried men, surrounded the property. It was not possible to storm the building because of its internal layout, but the police hoped that the incident would be over before daylight. The two men began firing on the police around 7am, and it was soon realised that they had the upper hand with their superior weapons. Following approval from the Home Office a troop of 20 Scots Guards from the Tower of London were sent to the scene and opened fire, shooting Sokoloff through the head. At this point the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, went to the scene but intimated that he had no intention of directing operations.

Shortly after midday the property caught fire. Churchill refused to allow firemen to deal with the blaze in the hope that the fire would force the men to leave the building or that they would suffocate.  At about 2pm, by which time the roof had fallen in, the firemen were allowed to enter the building, where they found two mutilated bodies. They could not be identified, but from the description given by Mrs Gershon, they were believed to be those of Svaars and Sokoloff. While dealing with the incident four firemen were injured, one of them fatally, when a wall collapsed.

While at the scene Churchill was taunted with cries of  “who let them in?” a reference to the Government’s liberal policy on immigration. For sometime afterwards the public jeered him for his handling of the situation. The Prime Minister, A.J. Balfour, said Churchill’s behaviour was inappropriate and accused him of putting his life and that of his official photographer, who was accompanying him, in danger. A bullet actually passed through Churchill’s top hat. He later admitted that it would have been wiser for him to stay in his office. It was said that he found the incident exciting and irresistible given his experience as a soldier and war correspondent. 

 On the 23rd January 1911 Jacob Peters, Yourka Dubof and Osip Federoff stood trial at the Guildhall accused of murdering the three policemen. Max Smoller had left the country before he could be arrested. The case for the Crown was flawed and discredited and the men were subsequently discharged. However the Coroner’s court later ruled that Gardstein had killed Sergeant Bentley.

 Peters and Dubof were later indicted for the murder of Sergeant Tucker and appeared at the Old Bailey on the 1st May 1911 before Mr Justice Grantham. They were also charged along with Nina Vassilleva (who was at 11 Exchange Buildings during the shooting) with conspiracy and breaking and entering.  The two men were acquitted when the Judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to convict them. Vassilleva was found guilty of conspiracy and sentenced to two years imprisonment, but this was overturned by the Court of Appeal five weeks later on the grounds of misdirection by the Judge.

One Latvian refugee who acquired notoriety in the East End was Peter Piatkow, also known as Peter the Painter because of his occupation as a house decorator who it was believed had links with various revolutionary movements. Like many other immigrants in London he used several names and carried different passports. Some people believed that he was nothing more than an imaginary figure.

However his name came to prominence again in 2008 when Tower Hamlets Community Housing named two blocks of residential accommodation Peter and Painter respectively. A plaque was erected explaining that the properties were named after the anti-hero of the Sidney Street siege. The Metropolitan Police Federation and the family of Sergeant Bentley condemned the Housing Association for using the names saying it glorified the murders and was insensitive given the level of terrorism in the country. The Housing Authority said there was no evidence that Piatkow killed the policemen and that the names were not linked to the murders. It also said there was some doubt whether he ever existed.

One hundred years later the Siege and the background to it remain an interesting and important historical event.