Infant to 3 + universal preschool

I've not been able participate in this discussion previously, but have read the report, analysis and much of the discussion here. As a result, I'd like to contribute several thoughts for consideration. 
(1). Endurance and ongoing value of 0-3 approaches seem to me to be dependent on the extent to which they would  (relatives,neighborhood, etc.)as opposed to building an artificial construct to which the parent must "go" for service.  Parent as first teacher (that emigrated here from New Zealand) (see patnc.org)is one such approach for daycare, home groups, one-on-one, and other delivery modes that (a) is showing enduring gains in both student achievement in school and parent confidence and parenting skills; (b) extends the learning from the individual parent or group of parents through the network of friends or neighbors that is nearly always a natural affiliative interaction for parents of young children; might allow for an integration of information re developmental issues as well as a network or umbrella framework for coherent organizing of responsibilities (e.g., nutrition, developmental screening and health, with one entity as primary)with one primary entity having the lead. 
There are, as a mentor of mine says, at least two kinds of organization: natural formations and artifical constructs.  Family, in whatever form it exists, is a natural formation. That's an existing and/or potential strength to build on.
(2) Re "universal" preschool.  Many moons ago, I spent 5 years  in what was then a parent participation preschool in a large California city. I co-led an effort to maintain funding for such programs; at that time, our argument was future mental health cost savings rather than readiness.  We knew we had helped children constructively deal with parent divorce; discovered learning impediments early; and parents became each others teachers and friends.  Still, weekly meetings were a required element of this low-budget preschool. Moreover, whether single parents or 2 working parents, all but 4 of the parents in that preschool became active volunteers in the public schools their children attended.
  I cannot support the concept of "universal preschool" without "universal" active parent involvement; in fact, it was the parent networking and learning that had resulted from this requirement which enabled proponents of Head Start to maintain funding in its first large challenge.  In the parent participation preschool model of 25 years ago, it was the school which bore the burden of attendance at (then weekly) meetings by parents.  Otherwise, its funding was at risk.  I would strongly support consideration of approaches of this kind, with a secondary consequence of financial cost for any parent who does not consistently participate in either day (working at the preschool) or fairly frequent evening learning/networking meetings. I hope that, should the state choose to invest in the ideal of universal preschool, that the parameters of such preschools will include acknowledgment of individual parent responsibility, and mechanisms for building of parent skills and community engagement. Otherwise, it's a lost opportunity for parents and a much poorer investment for taxpayers.
(3) Facilities and time. (a) At an education conference 10-12 years ago, I was bowled over by the creativity of a school district that saw a need for a preschool program yet had no facility. So what did they do?  They held a "twilight" preschool from 4-7 pm; it was located in a kindergarten classroom (teacher OK), and once a week a local industry donated food for dinner. That night was parent learning night, with supper. (2) A number of years ago, I raised funds for a school-community playground -- far more than the school district could do alone, and of greater value for the community than what would have been built by the district alone.  When considering facilities needs, is there a way to