Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board staff outline 9–12 month process to start new nursing programs; application fee $2,500 and essential elements emphasized
Summary
Education staff walked the board through the steps for proposing a new nursing education program: submit a letter of intent, attend informational sessions (March 4 and Aug. 19, 2025), pay a $2,500 application fee with up to three drafts, and complete a 9–12 month iterative review with two independent education consultants; essential elements include evidence of community need, a qualified director, faculty, and clinical placements.
At its Jan. 30 meeting the Texas Board of Nursing received an extended presentation on starting new nursing education programs in Texas. Staff described an established, multi-step process intended to protect students and patients by ensuring proposed programs have sufficient human, fiscal and clinical resources before opening.
Virginia Ayres and education staff explained the front-end steps: an initial telephone contact and letter of intent, attendance at a two‑hour informal information session (virtual sessions for 2025 listed as March 4 and Aug. 19 from 1–3 p.m.), and identification of a qualified proposed program director. Staff said the agency requires evidence of community need (often from the Texas Center for Nursing Workforce Studies), a budget, at least one identified faculty member, clinical contracts, and a program evaluation plan.
The board’s written guidance requires an application fee of $2,500 to accompany the first submitted draft; programs may submit up to three drafts during a 12‑month window. Two education consultants perform independent reviews and provide revision feedback; the typical full timeline to board presentation is nine to 12 months, though staff noted it can vary by workload and proposal quality. Staff also described additional pre‑opening oversight such as required surveys or virtual tours of facilities and post‑opening monitoring tied to the board order.
Staff warned that many proposals fail early for poor preparation, inadequate director qualifications, or unrealistic plans for faculty and clinical sites; they said those deficiencies are screened out before a proposal proceeds to full review.
