OK then Mercy, I will try.
For me, my child's special needs are intricately entwined with his 21st August birthday. They are part and parcel of the same thing. He speaks late, he understands very very late. The speech therapist suspects he is autistic. I think he isn't so that makes me pretty lonely. But most importantly, he follows the same neurological path as his elder brother, who outgrew his difficulties by about 4.6.
I have not the slightest doubt that if his elder brother had gone to school at 4.0, he would have been classed as having special needs. His speech was only just coming together at 4.0. We might well have had him diagnosed as "HFA" or high-functioning autistic.
A false positive diagnosis like this - or even just the prospect of it - would have affected more people than me and my family and our relationship with our son. It would have affected those other children in the queue for speech therapy, for specialist support, for one-to-one. Forcing 4.0 boys who are not ready into school then diagnosing them as having special needs is to the direct detriment of other children who are also in need of support but for whom waiting is no cure. Nor does it give the early-starting child an educational advantage - see our performance compared with that of countries where all children start later.
For me, the spectre of the 4.0 starting date kept me awake for the last two years more than the tantrums, more than the echolalia, more than the averted eye-contact, more than the rigid behaviours, more than anything really. I had a strange and long long "battle" (more like a dance really) with the Council which resulted - finally - in getting confirmation that my DS2 could defer for a year without needing any diagnosis. As the tantrums go, the echolalia fades, the eyes look straight at me, the behaviour improves, I can feel happy knowing that he has time to catch up.
Negotiating this start date did not come easy. At one point, I "caught" Bradford Council about to change their policy and literally had to run down the hill from my house to catch a train to run to their executive council meeting to persuade them not to alter the policy. I feel proud that there are hundreds of children in my LEA whose parents have a choice because of what I did that day in April. I don't expect many of the parents to take up the choice. Many of them have kids who will thrive. More sadly, many of them will never be told they have a choice - the opinion of my nursery manager is that it all comes down to funding and that schools collude in keeping the true statutory school age a secret.
After a while, you start to think. You think "Hey, I'm a lawyer, I know how to analyse, I know how to argue, I know to fight. Other people don't. Other people's children are being damaged. Other children with SN are sitting in a queue while boys who just needed another year at home are being assessed and analysed and diagnosed and treated. Other LEAs are, in my opinion, breaching the Human Right Act". You think about your own child, but you think about the other children too. You have to remember that many 4.0 children thrive at school (I haven't met any frankly but their parents post on mumsnet) - and outside mainstream is a different issue altogether - but you realise you are one of a tiny minority of parents with the relevant experience to stand up for the ones who aren't going to thrive.
So when I found that the Government had briefed Jim Rose to report on more flexible options for school starting age, I was very happy and excited, not just for my child but for others. It's a bit like the US election, to give you an analogy that you may find acceptable.
Then the Rose report came out today and I was extremely disappointed. And I felt more upset because the same bloody posts were still appearing suggesting this is a trivial issue. Like I would have to start all over again to explain that this is a disgrace. That no child dies because of this but thousands are affected, not just directly but also because the money and the professionals are being diverted away from other kids. And I had come to believe that it is important. That it's a big issue. And that not every child would benefit from deferring but to deprive mothers of the right to defer is disenfranchising.
And I post on this board a lot. And when I've had a horrible enounter with a professional or a sneering mother of a neurotypical child, it's the mothers on the SN board who pick me up time and time again, even though most of them must think I'm in denial about my child's condition. They tolerate this in me as many of us tolerate the denial in our husbands and partners. They give me the benefit of a hard-won expertise that they never wanted to have and they don't ask for any return. And all I hope I can do to contribute is to speak for the people who feel too bloody scared about their non-talking kids' future to even post on the special needs board. Some are too scared to even click on it.
And I suppose I made the mistake of thinking that I could express my feelings away from the main board. Because I'd got into the habit of coming here and being understood when no-one else understands, including my husband, parents and friends. And I forgot that most of you don't have kids on the ASD borderline who are born in August. And that most of you have not spent the last 18 months campaigning on the issue. And I forgot that "summer-born" has no significance to most of you whereas to me it means school-age issues.