Keller ISD parents submit open letter demanding information on district split plan
READ MORE
Keller ISD controversy
Read our reporting on the possible plan to split Keller ISD into two districts.
Expand All
One week after a heated special meeting of the Keller school board to discuss a proposal to split the district in two, parents frustrated with the process posted an open letter to social media demanding information trustees promised to provide them.
“Last Thursday evening after many hours of passionate discussion you promised us you’d seek community input,” the letter posted Jan. 23 reads. “You told the community there would be a website with information and committees to provide feedback. It has been a week and the community has heard absolutely nothing from any of you. There has been no meeting recap, no updates, no social media posts, and absolutely no communication. You have gone silent.”
The letter was posted on the Facebook page of the advocacy nonprofit Keller ISD Families for Public Education, which first broke the news of the board’s intention to split the district and its attempt to do so without public input.
The letter mentions school board trustees who the group says have tried to conduct the process in secret: President Charles Randklev, Vice President John Birt, and Trustees Heather Washington, Micah Young and Chris Coker. The post tagged the profiles of Birt, Young and Coker, but notes that the group was unable to tag Randklev and Washington, as their accounts have blocked the group’s profile.
“No official update has been given to the board as to when the information will be posted on the district website,” Washington said in an email. “I haven’t received the materials for next week’s meeting yet, so please stay tuned for updates on the reports.”
The Star-Telegram reached out to the other trustees mentioned in the letter, but did not immediately receive a response.
“The five trustees behind the plan to split the district have seemingly gone radio silent since last week’s board meeting, and we have had no communication from district administration,” said Laney Hawes, a regular at school board meetings and co-founder of Keller ISD Families for Public Education, in a written statement.
“Rumors are swirling that the district and the board are now at odds with each other as the board intends to move forward with the split regardless of community input,” she said. “This has left our community full of speculation, uncertainty and anger. This school district doesn’t belong to the trustees, it belongs to the community. We deserve answers and input.”
The parents’ letter lists eight demands, the first of which is the website trustees said they would create to inform the public of the split. It includes several details the parents want the website to feature, including a timeline of the process, the new boundaries proposed and how property, assets and debt would be split between the two new districts, among others.
Randklev said before closing the Jan. 16 meeting that the board would work on a community webpage before the next regularly scheduled meeting — which was moved to Jan. 30 — to “kind of share some of the information that we had so that they’ll hopefully clear up some of these misconceptions.”
The letter also demands a report that Young said during the Jan. 16 meeting was done by the Austin-based school finance consultancy Moak Casey. Young said the firm found that the new district — which he called “Alliance ISD” — would receive $10,200 per student, slightly more than the $9,900 per-student allotment the Keller school district receives.
Young told parents they would be given the report, but they have yet to receive it. The Star-Telegram has requested it from both the district and Moak Casey.
The letter addresses the board’s decision to send the proposal to the district’s public advisory committees for review.
“We want a transparent plan and process for community committees,” the letter states. “Current district committees should not be used to explore the plan for a potential split.”
Critics of the district split said they do not have confidence in the committees to provide unbiased feedback to the board.
“No one who has ever publicly spoken out against the board made it to a committee,” Hawes told the Star-Telegram at the Jan. 16 meeting.
Other demands in the letter include information about how a split would affect financing and staff, as well as plans on possible school closures to come.
The last item on the list presses trustees to call for a districtwide election on the proposal, as stipulated in the Texas Education Code.
“This detachment must be put on the ballot, as is intended by state law,” the letter states. “This decision cannot and should not be decided by the five of you. This school district belongs to all of us.”
The parents have suspected — and Matt Krause, Tarrant County commissioner for Precinct 3, where the district is located, has confirmed — that the board plans to use a loophole in the law that they say requires an election only in the case of a split, or detachment, being initiated by a petition signed by at least 10% of registered voters.
The Education Code does not explicitly require a vote if the board initiates the process by adopting a resolution, but election lawyers have told the Star-Telegram that the law must be interpreted to require a vote in both cases.
The letter asks people to show their support by commenting with a green check mark emoji. The post had 506 comments as of Friday morning, the vast majority of them featuring the check mark.
Keller school district parents have also started online petitions demanding transparency and accountability in the process. Both were created on Jan. 16.
One created by Amy Galilo had garnered 2,837 signatures as of Friday morning. Another by Katherine Woods had 1,779 signatures.
Keller school board posts informational web page on split
After publication of this article, Randklev shared a link on social media to a “Reshaping FAQ” page on the district’s website and gave some comments of his own regarding the split.
“Our priority has always been the best interests of students,” he said in the Facebook post. “As a trustee, this means focusing on the financial health and stability of our school district. Like many districts, we are navigating an unprecedented financial landscape with no clear resolution in sight.”
The split would address “insufficient funding, inflation, underfunded mandates, and lack of funding for teacher pay,” he said.
The financial benefits of a split include increased per-student funding and lower recapture payments, according to the FAQ page, and smaller districts would be more efficient. The page does not explain how the split would generate these results.
The new districts would share educational resource facilities like the Keller Center for Advanced Learning, Keller Collegiate Academy and athletic facilities, Randklev said, adding that this is a “common practice in many districts.”
The split would also address the district’s funding crisis, he said, noting that the district still faces a $5 million deficit even after cutting $45 million from the budget. He did not provide details of how it would address the crisis.
Randklev did not immediately respond to an email seeking clarification on these statements.
The split would “enhance local control,” according to the FAQ page.
In his post, Randklev appeared to address calls to switch to a single-member district, by which trustees are elected to represent the geographical areas in which they live. Keller ISD is an at-large district, meaning trustees can live anywhere in the district.
Single-member districts are a “no-win situation regardless of where you live,” Randklev said, pointing to Fort Worth ISD as an example.
Randklev also called out a “a rampant misinformation campaign that began on social media coupled with meeting act requirements,” saying the campaign has made it “challenging to provide information.”
Several people who commented on his post said that any “misinformation” could have been avoided had the board been more transparent in this process from the start.
When news first broke of the proposed split, Fort Worth City Councilmember Charlie Lauersdorf told the Star-Telegram that a trustee told him the board originally did not want to disclose the plan to the public.
The district does not have a strict timeline for the process, according to the FAQ page, but said it could be shortened or lengthened as needed.
As for the effect on students, the page says it will be minimal, with most students allowed to stay in the schools and feeder patterns in which they are already.
“The District’s priority would be to maintain stability and ensure a smooth transition,” the page says.
The page includes a comment form to provide feedback on the proposal.
This story was originally published January 24, 2025 at 11:21 AM.
