0:00

This is the BBC. This

0:03

podcast is supported by advertising

0:05

outside the UK.

0:07

BBC Sounds,

0:10

music, radio, podcasts.

0:13

Hello and welcome to Political Thinking, a conversation

0:16

with rather than an interrogation

0:19

of someone whose political thinking

0:21

shapes our political thinking. My

0:24

guest this week is a man who can claim to have more

0:26

influence on what children in England are taught,

0:29

how

0:29

they learn to read,

0:30

how they learn to count, how they learn

0:33

British history, than pretty

0:35

much anyone else for the past 10 or

0:37

so years. Nick Gibb has been

0:40

Schools Minister for 10 of the past 13

0:42

years at a time of pretty much constant

0:45

political change. In that time there have been five

0:47

Prime Ministers, six Education

0:49

Secretaries

0:51

and 15 different Housing Ministers.

0:54

Nick Gibb, welcome to Political

0:56

Thinking. Thanks, Nick. How do you do it? How

0:58

have you been the great survivor? Well

1:01

I think I take these issues

1:03

very seriously and I feel very strongly

1:06

about education. When I visit

1:08

schools in the past, particularly

1:10

in opposition, and I saw children

1:12

who were just not fulfilling their potential. You

1:14

saw, you met bright kids who said I want to be a

1:17

doctor, I want to be an electrician

1:19

and you realise they're in a school

1:22

that would not deliver the grades that would

1:24

help them to do that. So I felt a great sense of

1:27

justice that if they had been in

1:29

a different school, a better school, they would

1:31

have been able to fulfil that ambition.

1:33

And then you meet young children who are

1:37

in primary school still not able to read

1:39

and that did strike home

1:42

with me and I felt that I wanted

1:44

to understand why that was. And

1:47

by doing that research, by

1:49

taking the issue seriously, I think

1:51

that people in the House of Commons think

1:54

that that is the right approach

1:56

to being a Minister and that's really why I think I've survived

1:58

so long.

1:59

changes

4:00

david cameron made to allow michael knight

4:02

to marry a is very different

4:04

from what he was in the eighties and nineties both

4:07

him political life public life and in the

4:09

professions as well was very

4:11

difficult to be openly gay

4:13

in those days and i and i you know

4:15

i wanted to do well in politics i wanted

4:17

to do well that kpmg

4:20

and and so and the same

4:22

applies to my phone his career so it was

4:24

impossible for us to be open about our relationship

4:26

but we were always very clear that year

4:28

we had a lovely relationship we will not going

4:31

to allow work and ambition

4:33

to fact that we were going to allow

4:35

our relationship to affect our ambitions

4:38

in a professional and worthless i've

4:41

heard you discuss

4:43

the secrecy that he felt was forced on

4:45

me but not the consequence

4:49

and when when you say it might be

4:51

near anything might that

4:54

you didn't become a cabinet minister

4:56

or you haven't say saw because

4:59

of your six ounces a pretty that's angry

5:02

about that as cryo

5:04

because it's not a if i were different

5:07

persons it wouldn't have

5:09

us i don't believe this any kind of prejudice

5:11

it's a fact that the way i wanted to live

5:13

my life meant that i did not want to go

5:16

and socialize to go to the receptions to

5:18

go to all those things because i wanted to

5:20

be at home with michael

5:22

where we have a wonderful relationship

5:24

and i would perhaps have gone had

5:27

been amply goes a couple and that's

5:29

on me it's not on anybody else on

5:32

else from yes that was a decision

5:34

that you took now

5:37

we come back to that decision that

5:39

you took eventually you want sex

5:46

marriage has come back to the us open later on

5:48

or to go back to why education

5:51

a question i sometimes ask on this podcast

5:53

because it seems we're often group is very revealing

5:57

of people's political thinking

7:59

you came to the view, did

8:02

you, that that was damaging children's

8:04

futures? Yes, it was an unsophisticated

8:06

analysis of a 15-year-old, but

8:08

I knew that what was happening was

8:12

doing a lot of damage. I remember seeing a 15-year-old

8:15

in the library of the sixth form that

8:17

I was in reading, Enid Blython, and I couldn't

8:19

understand why somebody of that age

8:21

would be reading a book so simple that I had read

8:24

when I was eight. And so I just...

8:28

And what was the answer? Why were they? Because

8:30

they had not been taught to read properly early on in their

8:32

careers, and it's tragic. And

8:35

as I visited schools from really 2003 onwards, and you

8:37

would see children who you

8:41

just knew, had they been in a better school, had

8:43

they been taught to read in a more effective

8:46

way, would not be having the problems that they had. I'm

8:48

fascinated. Is that the anger? There you

8:50

are, 15. You look at this boy reading

8:53

Enid Blython, a book that, as it were,

8:55

he's seven years, two old, four. I bet he couldn't read any

8:57

book at any age, but as it were. And

9:00

you're already feeling cross. I mean, just thinking

9:02

that's not right. Absolutely. And

9:04

also, you know, at the time, there's a lot of

9:07

unrest in schools, the behavior was appalling

9:10

in too many schools, and that did let down

9:12

children. And I do feel the sense of... And

9:15

it's similar to the economy. I felt, you know, there

9:17

are better ways of running an economy where people don't

9:20

lose their jobs, where managers can manage

9:22

the business. And I like what I heard, Mrs.

9:25

Thatcher say that as a 15 year old, a 16

9:27

year old, that's what drove me into

9:29

the Conservative Party and ultimately

9:32

into politics. And then also similarly

9:34

then the same injustice applies where schools

9:36

are not delivering the kind of education that parents

9:39

want for their children. So when you become

9:41

the shadow schools minister, then actually

9:44

schools minister, you push

9:47

what many people would call, I wonder if you do, a

9:49

traditional fact based approach

9:52

to education back to basics. Is

9:55

that how you would describe it? No, no, it's slightly

9:57

pejorative way of describing it. I would say knowledge

9:59

rather than... than facts. What I did in opposition,

10:01

I spent five years just visiting schools,

10:03

trying to understand, challenging what I was seeing,

10:06

reading about the subject, meeting

10:08

people who had a different view from the prevailing

10:11

orthodoxy. And I learned a huge

10:13

amount. What I discovered from those visits

10:15

was that the more progressive, innovative commas

10:18

the school was, the worse the result.

10:20

And then I needed to understand, well, what do

10:22

I mean by progressive? What is this progressive

10:25

thing? Is it just about phonics versus

10:27

look and say? Is it just about setting

10:29

and streaming versus mixed ability teaching? No, it's

10:32

a lot more. And let's translate

10:34

phonics because I think it's probably

10:36

your proudest achievement that you've changed

10:39

the way in which children in English schools

10:41

at least are taught to read.

10:44

Translate phonics so people don't know what it is. Well,

10:46

phonics is a traditional way of teaching

10:48

children to read. You learn the sounds of the

10:50

letters, k-a, and you

10:53

blend them into a word cat. There are 44 sounds

10:56

in the English alphabet of 26 letters.

10:59

And it's the most effective way of teaching children

11:01

to read. What has happened from the fifties and sixties

11:04

in this country and the States is they

11:06

use an alternative method that was

11:08

felt to be simpler of look

11:10

and say you repeat high frequency words over

11:13

and over again. Now for bright children, they can pick it up like

11:15

that. But for many children who are

11:17

not able, it was a real struggle trying

11:19

to learn a thousand words on site compared

11:22

with learning 44 sounds and how to blend

11:24

them into words. But then this raises

11:26

a really important question, which

11:29

is who are you to say? I don't

11:32

mean it in a rude way. Yes, you're

11:34

interested. Yes, you care. Yes, you visit

11:36

and read a lot, but you're not a professional

11:38

educator. You've never been a teacher

11:41

and there'll be teachers listening to this programme

11:43

thinking, who on earth is he to tell us

11:45

what's the right way to teach? Absolutely.

11:48

And I've had that accusation levelled at me

11:50

countless times, but it's about the evidence.

11:53

And there was a study done in Clack Manningshire,

11:56

a longitudinal study over seven years. They're

11:58

absolutely demonstrated. effectiveness

12:00

of synthetic phonics versus other methods

12:03

and the studies in the state. So it's about looking at the

12:05

evidence, whatever the issue is. And the same

12:07

applies to math. How is math taught?

12:10

You just look at the evidence, look at the high-performing

12:12

countries around the world, Singapore,

12:15

Shanghai, South Korea,

12:17

Japan, and see how they teach math

12:19

in those countries. It's the same approach. And

12:22

the advantage I have had, and really the answer

12:24

to a question some moments ago about why

12:26

I survived so long, it is

12:28

the fact that we've gone out and looked, I've had those

12:31

five years in opposition, spending

12:33

time looking at the evidence, finding

12:35

out the causes of the problem. You

12:38

may remember Cecil Parkinson. He was

12:40

a great friend of mine and a mentor.

12:43

And he always- Tory party chairman under Margaret Thatcher,

12:45

and then later once again under William Hayke. That's

12:47

right. And he always said, you know, understand

12:50

what the problem is you're trying to solve, and then ask

12:52

yourself, what do we believe? And I've always

12:54

stuck to that approach. And by

12:57

what do you believe? I mean, go out and find the

12:59

evidence for what works. If he's in the interview,

13:01

we're not on the today program to wrestle with

13:03

quotes and facts and numbers. But you'll

13:05

know, evidence is always disputed.

13:06

I mean, Jane Follix,

13:09

UCL, did a study the other day in which

13:12

they say that Follix is too narrow,

13:14

it fails children, it doesn't give teachers

13:16

enough flexibility. Do

13:19

you think?

13:19

That's prejudice rather than evidence-based.

13:23

Why have this leveled again? This accusation

13:25

is made there. It wasn't easy

13:28

implementing the Follix policy.

13:31

We put in a test for six-year-old. That was criticized.

13:34

There are a whole raft of professors from

13:36

universities who say the very thing that you have quoted

13:39

that it's, it's grad grinding,

13:41

it's boring. It isn't boring for the children.

13:43

The children learn to read within weeks of starting

13:46

school. The evidence is that teachers

13:48

actually enjoy teaching it when they can see that

13:51

their children are actually effectively learning

13:53

to read. And as a consequence, we're going up through those,

13:55

in those league tables. We're now the fourth best in

13:57

reading in the polls internationals. No,

16:00

but what she says is

16:03

that she was trained in the 1950s

16:05

in ways that actually

16:07

she then had to undo. And

16:10

she used to tell me about hearing children

16:12

to read every day. And then when I became an MP,

16:14

I discovered actually that children are not heard

16:16

to read every day. They're heard once

16:18

a week. And that's what led me down the track of finding out

16:20

about phonics and meeting the Read and Reform Foundation.

16:23

She also said that she

16:25

taught her children their tables, multiplication

16:28

tables, with one eye on the door because

16:31

it was not permitted when

16:33

she was a teacher to teach the

16:36

multiplication tables. That was regarded as

16:38

grad grinding. An eye on the door for

16:40

who? For the head teacher because

16:42

it was forbidden to teach

16:45

tables. And so she

16:48

feared if the head came in and saw her doing

16:50

it, she'd be in trouble. She would be in trouble. And

16:52

yet we all know. Is it through this rumor I hear

16:54

that you occasionally go into classrooms, because

16:57

you obviously do on school visits

17:00

and get them to do their time tables? I will

17:02

absolutely. And that's how I I've stopped doing

17:04

it in recent times. But I did that on every

17:06

school visit, going to year six in a primary

17:08

school and asked children their tables. And

17:10

it's very interesting. In those early years, I was doing

17:13

that the hands that went up were fewer

17:16

than I see today. Now you see every hand going

17:18

up and even even difficult multiplication

17:21

table questions like eleven elevens, all

17:23

the hands would go up. It's a dramatic change

17:25

over those years. Now, your

17:27

mum, we've talked about your dad, we've alluded

17:30

to in terms of their jobs.

17:32

What about their politics? Is

17:34

this a household in which

17:36

over

17:38

the table while watching

17:40

the telly, you are getting about what's in

17:42

the news or about politics?

17:44

You being told what they think? We

17:47

did have discussions at

17:49

Saturday lunch, Sunday lunch, particularly. We

17:52

would have discussions around the table,

17:54

both my mother and father. I would say my

17:57

mother, certainly a conservative member of the party. My

17:59

father. I think he was a conservative but he

18:01

had a quite a strong social conscience

18:04

as well He didn't think anybody should be living in poverty

18:07

He believed that everyone should be entitled to

18:09

a home and hot water and everything else than food And

18:11

he had strong views about the issues that he was interested

18:14

in. So there were Discussions around

18:16

the table not necessarily about politics, but whatever

18:18

it was So it's obviously something in the water or

18:20

the food because it's not just you that's involved

18:22

in politics your brother now, sir, Robbie

18:24

Gibb Used to work here running

18:27

political programs the BBC went on to work

18:29

for Theresa May In Downing

18:31

Street as her director of communications. Yes

18:34

in a place where you're expected to stand

18:36

up for yourself. I'll give you a corner Play

18:39

what you thought. I think we

18:41

did have good discussions on a Sunday lunchtime

18:43

not always agreeing with our parents I have to say

18:45

also I'm four years older than I know it's hard

18:48

to tell but Four years

18:50

older than my brother went to university and then came

18:52

back I think and talked

18:54

to Robby about politics at university I think

18:56

he I think he found it fascinating as well probably

18:59

because of all our early childhood

19:01

discussion you gave him the bug did you? Yes,

19:04

or the disease. Yes, you're to blame

19:06

it in versus No, you

19:08

talked very powerfully at the beginning

19:11

movingly about the relationship you've got

19:13

with your husband Michael And

19:16

you met very soon after you got

19:18

involved in politics, didn't you?

19:20

We met in 1986 so we were both

19:22

in our eyes in my mid-20s Michael is

19:24

early 20s We met actually at

19:27

a dinner of the Adam Smith Institute

19:29

the next-generation Dinner a

19:31

free market think free marketing tech. Yes, and

19:34

Michael was very political, of course and Did

19:37

you realize then? That

19:40

you were going to have to lead a secret

19:42

life in many ways secret not

19:44

just from employers

19:48

potential employers, but your own family Well,

19:51

I took a view I knew probably

19:54

my late teens so 1819

19:56

that I was gay and My

20:00

own view was I think this is a

20:02

perfectly valid natural

20:05

way to be. And

20:08

I was not ashamed of it and I took

20:10

the view that I'm going to have a relationship

20:13

and I'm going to, like everybody

20:15

else has, but also I'm going

20:17

to have a proper career and it's not going to affect that. So

20:20

I did what I felt was necessary

20:23

and I think Michael absolutely took the same view. But

20:25

what's necessary in that case, and

20:28

it's very hard now,

20:31

I think, for people of my kids' generation

20:34

to understand, was in order

20:36

to pull that off you felt

20:38

that you couldn't tell your own parents? Yes,

20:42

because it's either

20:44

a private matter or it's not and if you tell

20:47

people then you're asking them to keep a secret. So

20:50

it's simpler simply to tell no one.

20:53

And I never felt that I was misleading

20:55

people because frankly society

20:58

was very different from what it is today and

21:01

so I didn't feel I was to

21:03

blame or Michael was to blame. Society

21:06

was to blame, if you like, to use that phrase,

21:08

because they had these views that if you were

21:11

openly gay you would not succeed

21:14

in the professions. You would not be selected

21:16

to be a conservative

21:18

MP, to be a candidate. So I

21:20

didn't really feel why society's

21:23

attitude should determine

21:25

the career path that I wanted to take

21:27

and I felt very strongly about wanting to take. But it

21:29

wasn't just society was it? It was the political

21:31

party of which you remember. I mean

21:34

section 28 in which

21:37

Mrs Thatcher was effectively saying to local

21:39

authorities, we think you're

21:42

in inverted commas teaching

21:43

homosexuality, you're propagandising

21:47

in favour of being gay.

21:50

Did that hurt you as a young

21:52

gamer? No it didn't actually

21:55

because I felt it was about making sure local

21:57

authorities were spending money, you know

21:59

rate pairs money. on the things that the ratepayers

22:01

wanted. So I didn't really worry about

22:03

it. But in, you know, as the years went by,

22:06

and the fact that it did become

22:08

a totemic of an attitude

22:10

to people that were gay,

22:13

I did become very opposed

22:15

to Section 28. And I was delighted when

22:19

William Hague took a view that we were going to not

22:21

have that as our policy. And did

22:23

you ever, looking

22:25

back, feel you owed a

22:27

debt of gratitude to people on everything else

22:29

you disagree with,

22:30

people who campaigned openly

22:33

for gay rights in a way that you didn't fear you could?

22:35

I mean, Peter Dachau has been a guest on

22:37

this. He's not, I

22:39

imagine, someone you agree with on almost

22:42

anything. Now, do you do credit

22:44

people like him with fighting publicly

22:47

for the rights you now enjoy? I do.

22:50

And I pay tribute to the bravery

22:52

of people like that. I pay

22:55

tribute to Tony Blair for introducing

22:58

civil partnerships, and David Cameron for

23:00

allowing Michael and I to marry, seeing

23:02

the same sex marriage. I also think there

23:05

was a role for people like me, who

23:08

didn't campaign, who weren't open about

23:10

our relationship, that we conduct ourselves,

23:13

we can have a proper loving

23:15

relationship that I'm proud

23:18

of, despite all the opposition

23:20

in society to people having a lifestyle

23:23

like we had. We did so quietly and discreetly.

23:26

But I feel that Michael and I are in some ways, you know,

23:29

role models for what a

23:31

gay life should be like. And I'm very proud of

23:33

that. And do you regret that

23:35

you didn't tell your family much earlier? If

23:38

you don't mind me asking, it's a private

23:40

question you might think. Do you think your mother

23:42

regrets that you didn't tell her years before?

23:44

I don't. I don't know

23:47

if they do. I mean, I'm

23:50

very, you know, you ask these questions, Nick,

23:53

I'm actually very comfortable with my

23:56

personal history and with Michael

23:58

and and I I'm pretty

24:00

sure Michael's very comfortable

24:03

as well. And we took the decisions we

24:05

took because we

24:07

wanted to have our relationship

24:10

which has lasted for 36 years

24:13

and hopefully more. And

24:16

I think we took all the right decisions in those circumstances.

24:19

You got married pretty much as soon as you could. Yes, turns

24:21

the law allowed. We had this thing, Michael and I, where

24:25

we say, should we, you know, civil

24:27

partnership, should we tell people, oh, the next election. After

24:29

the next election. And I think if

24:32

I was writing a biography at that stage, it would have been called

24:34

after the next election. But it was during the 2015 election

24:37

that we took a view that we

24:40

would get married. And then as soon

24:42

as that election was done, we

24:44

started booking venues and everything else. And then we

24:46

realized, of course, that you have to send

24:49

out save the date cards. And at

24:51

that point, we took the view that we

24:53

needed to have what we called privately the great

24:55

unveiling. And I

24:57

did an interview with the city teams

25:00

interview with Alice Thompson and Rachel

25:02

Sylvester talking about our marriage.

25:04

And so wonderfully, they wrote a really lovely

25:06

interview piece and they photographed Michael and I.

25:09

And that was a way of, if you like, controlling the

25:11

story and letting people know,

25:14

ready for the invitations going out for our wedding in November.

25:17

How do you feel now about the debate about what some

25:19

people call culture wars, some

25:21

called the war on woke? Well,

25:25

my view is that I want to focus

25:28

on reforming education. And

25:32

that's why I've lasted so long as a minister.

25:34

I just want to get our education

25:36

system. Even though I've been doing it for 10 years, there's

25:39

still masses to do. We've

25:42

gone from 68%, no statistics, you said,

25:44

but here we are, there's one. 68% of

25:46

schools were good or outstanding in 2010. Today, 88%.

25:49

But I want that to be 100%. There should be no

25:52

school nearby, a local school

25:54

that is in that 12% category. So there's

25:56

a lot to do and I want to continue that. I

25:58

don't want to be listening.

27:59

are

28:01

issues that are not

28:03

central to people's daily

28:05

lives. And I know that people

28:07

like to talk about these issues. I know people get very

28:10

cross and angry about them. But

28:12

I'm very comfortable in this government

28:14

because I know there is compassion and concern

28:17

and everybody in government wants to

28:19

support young people who are questioning

28:21

their gender in the best way possible, but

28:24

also including their parents. But

28:26

final thoughts on that. You don't

28:29

think, I

28:29

think there will be some people thinking who think,

28:33

well lucky for Nick Gibbs that he had

28:35

a man he loved and that they had agreed that

28:37

they could live privately, but it needs people

28:39

to fight.

28:41

And they may think you

28:43

should fight if you think what's being said about

28:45

transgender people is wrong. You shouldn't say,

28:47

well it's more important to talk about something

28:50

else. If you think it's wrong you should make

28:52

a stand for people like you when you were 15. Yes,

28:55

and I do that in the

28:57

department and we are working on transgender

28:59

guidance and that transgender guidance

29:02

will be great. It will be good. It will help schools

29:05

navigate a very sensitive issue

29:08

and it will support and help young

29:10

people who are questioning their

29:12

gender. We just have to get that guidance

29:14

right. So that's been five years that

29:16

it's been talked about the guidance. Well

29:19

we haven't been working on it for that

29:21

long. It's

29:24

in a good state and we just got It's almost there.

29:27

Almost there. But there are

29:29

some issues about some legal issues

29:31

we've got to grapple with and

29:33

it's got to be right. It's got to be the right

29:35

guidance for schools and that

29:38

they can use to support those young people. Now

29:41

as you say, education is your passion and

29:43

it's the content of education you really

29:45

have to care about and do care about but

29:48

you had to run around studios like this one

29:50

worrying about whether ruse were going to fall in. What

29:54

did you learn from the whole rack experience?

29:57

What did you get right at the end of the

29:59

day? wrong as a government. What if you like,

30:02

do you think the rest of us got right and

30:04

wrong? Because you might be critical

30:06

of the way that was reported and covered. I

30:10

do sometimes think the media is not as

30:14

straightforward as it really ought to be. The

30:16

rack issue, here's this concrete,

30:19

aerated reinforced autoclave

30:22

concrete. And it was used in

30:24

the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s in

30:27

a lot of buildings around the country. And

30:30

we've taken this issue very seriously. Over

30:33

the summer, we discovered that

30:36

some of these beams that the surveyors

30:39

had categorized as non-critical,

30:41

that they were relatively safe. We

30:43

discovered actually that though

30:46

they looked safe, they were not on one fell.

30:48

And then we had two more over the summer. So

30:50

inevitably, the decision we had to take,

30:52

and you would have taken the same decision to come absolutely sure,

30:55

when you saw that evidence, we had to then tell

30:57

the sector that if you have a rack that

30:59

we previously said was

31:02

okay to continue to use those

31:04

buildings, we then said, you're not. So

31:06

there are 170. We didn't overreact, because there are people

31:08

who think the education, are panicked,

31:11

overreacted. Well, we sent in. Suddenly, every

31:13

school in the country, every public building was

31:15

thinking, oh my God, is the roof going to fall in? So

31:18

we sent in our surveyors to

31:20

make sure that it wasn't some peculiar issue in that particular

31:23

school that led the thing. And what they discovered

31:25

was actually, we now know you can't

31:27

always see from the outside whether that

31:30

particular piece of rack is safe. So

31:32

we took the only decision that was safe. I have a

31:34

zero, and the Secretary of State has a zero

31:37

tolerance in terms of safety. We want our

31:39

school buildings to be safe as airlines. You don't

31:42

say 1% of airlines

31:44

can crash. And we say the same

31:46

thing, absolute zero tolerance. Roughly 100

31:48

are still. There

31:51

are 174 with confirmed rack. Only 23

31:54

of them are where children

31:56

are, some of the children are at

31:58

home learning through remote. and we want and

32:01

only one or two are where

32:03

all the children are at home but not for long

32:06

we're going to get those children into proper accommodation

32:08

as rapidly as possible. You're beginning to say I think that

32:11

you thought the media got this wrong

32:14

but I didn't really give you the chance to do. My

32:17

sense when you came into the Today programme studio

32:21

is you thought it's a kind of sane

32:23

rational as you've just said policy

32:26

decision that anybody would be taking with

32:28

this evidence and

32:30

the media are running around with their hair on fire if I had

32:32

any hair that is. Yes

32:35

and not just on this issue, many issues

32:38

I'm not sure you know

32:40

whether our media, you know I love

32:42

our debates on the Today programme I can't wait for

32:44

the next one but I'm

32:47

not always sure that the media, it's

32:50

really the newspapers really I would say

32:52

that they like to sensationalise matters everything

32:54

is about is a negative story and

32:57

I didn't really feel that the media were

32:59

treating this story as sensibly

33:01

and fairly as they should. We were taking the only

33:03

decision that could be taken I was absolutely

33:05

comfortable about the decision and

33:08

the idea that we would allow schools

33:11

given the evidence we had to continue

33:13

to use rooms with rack that could

33:15

collapse unacceptable and that should have

33:18

been the approach I think the media should have taken. Your

33:20

passion is not just for education but it seems to me

33:23

for long term change and we

33:25

talked about the fact you're a rarity

33:27

in staying in the same job for

33:29

a long time although we should briefly say David Cameron got

33:31

rid of you didn't he because he just thought to tell me

33:33

somebody else. Yes and then he brought

33:36

me back so he it's

33:38

very funny because he I got the call

33:40

to go and see him and he said you know the phrase bring

33:43

back matron bring back hanging well

33:46

a lot of colleagues in the comments

33:48

of insane bring back Gibb and so I'm bringing back Gibb

33:51

and I think that I mean he has his excuse for getting rid of

33:53

you the first way he's in

33:55

his biography he says that the policy

33:57

was that if a minister of state is not

34:00

going into the cabinet and again, we

34:02

discussed that earlier, then they have to go. So

34:04

it's up or out. And he said it's a great

34:06

rule, but wrong example with me. And that's why he

34:08

brought me back to continue the education

34:11

reform. So if you're not going to be promoted, you

34:13

get moved out. But what general

34:16

rule do you learn about

34:18

long term change? Because

34:21

we should do that talk rather passionately about

34:23

the need for long term change, to

34:25

which I interview him and everybody else said, well, it's

34:27

a bit, you are talking about it,

34:29

given you've had five prime ministers in 13

34:32

years, you haven't

34:34

found a way to deliver consistency

34:37

of personnel, let alone a policy. What's the

34:39

big lesson you would

34:42

learn if you could leave a note for

34:44

someone to read in 10 years time, no party politics,

34:46

please. What would you tell them? It

34:48

is about consistency of policy.

34:50

And the advantage I had that

34:53

I had prime ministers, David Cameron, Theresa

34:55

May, Rishi, who were absolutely

34:57

committed to the reform agenda. And

35:00

so that meant that we could we weren't chopping and

35:02

changing the policy as ministers came

35:04

and went. And I think that is important consistency

35:06

policy, because things like reform take

35:09

years. I mean, the multiplication tables

35:11

check that we introduced, it became

35:13

compulsory last year for the first time I was working

35:15

on that. In 2012, we had to devise it, we had

35:21

to pilot it, we had to consult. It

35:23

takes years to implement policy. So

35:25

what you don't want then is another minister

35:28

coming in saying, oh, we don't want a multiplication table checks, and

35:30

let's do a division check and

35:33

start starting the whole process over again. So I do

35:35

think consistency of policy supported

35:38

by the prime minister supported by the Secretary of State,

35:40

I think is key to successful

35:42

reform in any division. And was

35:45

modern politics capable

35:47

of delivering this? The constant

35:50

desire for change, for freshness,

35:53

for a new face, a new soundbite, a new

35:55

clip on social media. Has

35:58

politics lost capacity to do

36:00

what you're describing Well, I

36:03

hope not. I mean we do live in a democracy

36:05

with all its challenges, but I think

36:07

the public This is what

36:09

I think people want they do want Politicians

36:13

who deliver on the promise

36:15

and you know one of the people have not mentioned very

36:17

much as Michael Gove I mean working

36:19

with Michael in opposition and then in government

36:21

when he really get when he was education shadow

36:23

education sector Then education was a real pleasure and

36:26

I think politicians like him Wherever

36:28

he has gone He has he

36:31

has wanted to deliver change and reform

36:33

and I think that I think that approach

36:36

to politics that you're not in it For

36:38

what what's what's good for Nick Bibb

36:41

for the next promotion that you're in

36:43

it because you want to Improve

36:46

the lives of people that sounds sort of slightly pious

36:48

but actually if you most politicians do

36:50

come into politics to try and Improve

36:52

our country to make life better for people

36:55

whether it's the economy the health service or

36:57

education And I think we've just got to

36:59

make sure that that continues to be the

37:02

motivating force for all the politicians that

37:04

we that we select if you

37:06

lose the next election And

37:10

let's say both of us having a debate

37:12

about whether it's likely to happen, but if you do Are

37:15

your reforms? Embedded

37:18

enough to survive a change

37:21

of government a party because David Plunk is something

37:23

of a tradition is himself Said at the

37:26

Labour conference this week that

37:28

the mindset of the Department for Education

37:31

is driven very Substantially by

37:33

Nick Gibby said we've got a

37:35

stop going back to the prep school of the

37:38

1950s and address the schools of the 2050s

37:40

do you know I wake at night

37:42

thinking when you leave when the Conservatives

37:44

leave office all get ripped up It's

37:47

obviously a worry and I was pleased by Phillips

37:50

and sort of you know acceptance and praise

37:53

for phonics the shadow education Shadow

37:55

education secretary, but one of the one

37:57

things we have achieved over the last 13 years is

38:00

that we have liberated the teaching profession

38:03

to have those debates about how

38:05

to teach, about what's in the curriculum,

38:08

what James Callahan called in the Ruskin

38:10

speech in 1976 the secret garden.

38:13

We have opened the secret garden for

38:16

teachers to debate and we are almost unique

38:18

in the world now. People from overseas

38:21

who want to discuss these issues say that in this

38:23

country the teachers are blogging, they're

38:25

discussing, they go to these

38:27

new conferences called Research Ed founded

38:29

by Tom Bennett where a thousand teachers will

38:32

turn up on a wet Saturday in September

38:34

to debate evidence-based approaches to education.

38:37

So that won't go away. Those

38:40

teachers will continue to debate these issues

38:42

and no government now can stop

38:44

that from happening. And I'm really, actually

38:47

the most proud achievement as well as the phonics

38:50

is that liberating the teaching profession.

38:52

The academies program enables them to do that. The

38:55

free schools program, 600 schools

38:57

set up by teachers of

39:00

delivering wonderful results who've challenged

39:02

prevailing orthodoxies to get those results. And

39:04

if there's a teacher listening who's howling

39:07

at the radio or the TV saying

39:09

not enough of us, overworked,

39:12

underpaid, underappreciated,

39:14

undervalued, what's this man talking about?

39:17

Well I'm on, I say that

39:20

as an education minister I'm always

39:23

battling for more money. We've worked

39:25

hard to reduce unnecessary workload

39:28

on teachers and we've been successful, we've taken it down

39:30

by five hours. So I'm on their side absolutely

39:32

with you and thank you for the rising

39:35

standards that we're seeing in our schools as a consequence

39:37

of those teachers. You've talked of your proudest achievements.

39:41

Isn't your proudest achievement one that you've not mentioned?

39:44

You're on The Simpsons as a cartoon character.

39:47

Why did you fight? Yes, annoying

39:50

you raised that. I can guess where

39:52

it came from. Look, I

39:54

have friends who write

39:56

The Simpsons and there's

39:59

a love act. episode

40:01

and there's a scene of the House of Commons and

40:03

one of the MPs who's dancing behind Benedict

40:07

Cumberbatch's character is me. I'm

40:10

told by the writers they drew that character

40:12

to look like me. Nick Gibb, Schools

40:15

Minister, thank you very much for joining me on political

40:17

thinking. My pleasure, thank you Nick. Nick

40:19

Gibb is a useful reminder to

40:21

people in my trade that perhaps

40:24

we're over-drawn towards pay

40:26

too much attention to those who are ambitious

40:29

in conventional ways, the charismatic,

40:32

the loud, the attention-seeking as

40:35

against the shy, low-key

40:37

former chartered accountant who

40:40

is hugely ambitious for

40:42

his ideas, for what some

40:45

say is his ideology, who

40:47

succeeds pretty much

40:50

under the radar. And if you're

40:52

interested in particular in

40:54

education do go to

40:56

BBC Sounds where you'll find other

40:58

political thinking interviews with Bridget

41:00

Phillipsson, the shadow education secretary

41:03

for the Labour Party, Gillian Keegan

41:05

who's Nick Gibb's boss, the former

41:07

president of the National Education Union,

41:09

Mary Bousstead and Catherine

41:12

Burble Singh,

41:13

head teacher,

41:14

pinup of this Conservative government

41:17

and former head of the Social Mobility

41:20

Commission. Thanks for listening.

41:23

Political thinking is produced by Dan Kramer,

41:26

it's edited by Jonathan Brunert and

41:28

the studio manager this week was Richard Townsend.

41:32

And if you can't get enough podcasts join

41:34

me for the Today podcast.

41:37

It's new, it's on BBC Sounds

41:39

and Amal Rajan and I

41:42

kick off our shoes, take a deep

41:44

breath, step back from the headlines

41:47

once a week to look at

41:50

what is really going on,

41:52

not just here but around the world.

41:55

This week we ask the question, Israel

41:58

and Gaza,

41:59

what next?

41:59

that's the today poke would

42:02

you can subscribe to on b

42:04

b sounds