I think picking out that one example is completely trivialising the important point she was actually making:
The chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, says there are three "broad groups" to describe what has happened:
The "hardest-hit" group of young children have suffered from time out of school, going backwards on words and numbers and with "regression back into nappies among potty-trained children" or losing "basic skills" such as using a knife and fork.
The majority of children in the middle "have slipped back in their learning to varying degrees since schools were closed to most children and movement restricted" and the report says: "Lost learning is unarguable, but it is hard to assess."
There are also children who found the lockdown a positive experience - these children, from supportive but not necessarily well off backgrounds, might have benefited from a greater sense of togetherness with parents and "quality time" as a family
But Ms Spielman says this did not divide along the lines of advantage and deprivation, but instead factors such as whether parents were able to spend time with children and families having what she described as "good support structures".
What she actually said was nuanced and balanced. And she fully said that it's a parenting issue, but I don't see why that means it doesn't matter unless you just don't care about children in difficult, chaotic or struggling families and think they should suffer for having the audacity to be born to their particular parents?
She's trying to highlight the devastating growth of inequality following the closure of schools, which will be felt for a generation.
But yeah, hahaha, some people don't use knives and forks properly, hahaha.