The Telegraph has an article quoting an unnamed Ofsted spokesman as saying that tablet computers are "highly disruptive". I was surprised, as I'd never heard these computers linked with disruption, and wondered what the evidence was. I'm not sure there is any, so I posted this comment.
On the matter of mobile phones in class, there is plenty of evidence that they cause disruption. They are an instant temptation to pupils to focus on things other than the lesson, and Sir Michael's comment is well-founded.
This anonymous statement about tablet computers is based on no such evidence, and is a disgraceful abuse of the authority of the schools inspectorate.
Who is the "spokesman"? What is his or her evidence that tablet computers are "extremely disruptive"? In which inspection reports has Ofsted found pupils not working properly because they have been using tablet computers? In fact, does Ofsted need evidence any more before making ex cathedra judgements on things it knows nothing about? Is peremptory dictatorship based on personal opinions that may or may not have any foundation in evidence a basis for school inspection?
Perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps it is of no consequence whether or not the inspectorate retains any confidence among teachers and headteachers on the matter of its competence and ability to form judgements based on evidence. I still think it does matter. Inspectors have always been liable to make mistakes, but at least in the past they have been honest mistakes.
Ofsted should have a new strapline - Oderint, dum metuant. It should employ a Latin inspector to translate this for his or her colleagues.