There is a difference between delegating the funds and refusing to write statements.
I know a lot of LAs have argued that if funds are delegated to schools, children don't need statements and David Wolfe did a piece on the legal position for IPSEA which is on the net somewhere because who funds the statements should never been the issue.
Different LAs have always had different approaches about funding and this was something the new rules aimed to tackle. But it seems to me that this doesn't change the position as regard whether, in law, a child needs a statement. Similarly the new school funding changes should have no impact on statementing, just the funding of it.
However, delegation arguments aside, it seems LMB is saying something quite different, namely that LAs may now be directly linking the arrival of the CFB (and not just the 6000 delegatiion of funds) and possible future changes with EHCs to the removal of children's statements and I think that is very worrying.
To see children have their statement taken from them on the basis of a proposed future change in the law suggests that LAs may be using these changes as an opportunity not only to reduce statements but to remove them.
And the idea there is a target figure from Government for the number of children to receive support is very concerning