School district approves 2025–26 controlled open‑enrollment plan as officials warn of shifting enrollment patterns

The Citrus County School Board voted unanimously to approve the district's 2025–26 controlled open‑enrollment plan and to advertise a May 13 public hearing on proposed attendance boundary changes.

The action followed a staff presentation on district enrollment trends by planning director Mister Dixon, who told the board overall K‑12 enrollment decreased from 15,341 in December 2023 to 15,007 in December 2024, a decline of 334 students (2.2 percent). Dixon said the district's December snapshot showed concentrated growth in Central Ridge, Citrus Springs and the Rock Crusher area while other parts of the county declined.

"The December snapshot'... we take the enrollment every year right before the December break so that we're comparing apples to apples," Dixon said as he summarized the district's five‑year work plan and site plans for Pine Ridge and Rock Crusher.

The nut graf: District officials said the combination of steady single‑family permitting in parts of the county, rapid housing projects in several zones and an increase in students using the state Family Empowerment Scholarship and home education are changing where and how many students attend Citrus County brick‑and‑mortar schools. Board members emphasized the need for flexible facility planning and partnerships to manage pockets of rapid growth.

Dixon told the board the district is updating its controlled open‑enrollment policy (identified on the agenda as "2526 controlled open enrollment") to allow staff to close open enrollment at elementary schools that reach 95 percent capacity and to add a sibling placement provision when appropriate. He said the district's high schools showed roughly 11 percent excess capacity at year end, middle schools about 23 percent, and elementary schools about 6 percent overall, with some elementary schools showing significant localized increases.

During public comment, Inverness resident Rosemary Nilles raised questions about accountability for students enrolled in home education and using state scholarship funds. "Does the district have a role in assessing the achievement of the students in home education?" she asked, and requested staff follow up with details. The superintendent offered to have staff contact her.

Board members used the discussion to press staff on short‑ and medium‑term options for schools projected to grow. Several members—most notably Mister Kennedy and Mister Dodd—urged staff to consider scalable school models such as K–8 configurations and to pursue master planning and traffic and infrastructure studies at growth hot spots, particularly Rock Crusher. Board members also asked staff to coordinate with county and city partners, the sheriff's office and the MPO on traffic and pedestrian safety around affected campuses.

The board motioned to approve the controlled open‑enrollment plan and to advertise for a public hearing to adopt attendance boundaries; the motion passed unanimously.

Ending: Dixon said staff will return with more detailed maps and capacity options; the advertised public hearing on attendance boundaries is scheduled for the May 13, 2025 board meeting.