NURSE EDUCATOR BLOG

Interconnected Pressures Weigh on Academic Nursing Programs in 2026

Faculty well-being and sustainability, widening gaps in student readiness, and increasing complexity in academic systems and technology are top of mind for many academic nursing leaders in 2026.

During roundtable discussions at an ancillary dinner sponsored by ATI during the AACN Deans Annual Meeting in April, nursing program deans and directors described these concerns as interconnected pressures that affect all aspects of nursing education. They said these issues have considerable influence on teaching, learning and program outcomes.

Concern 1: Faculty Sustainability

Across conversations, faculty sustainability emerged as the central issue shaping how nursing education is delivered. Burnout, excess workload, and emotional strain are powerful and persistent threats to faculty retention, the attendees said.

A core reason is that faculty responsibilities continue to expand. In addition to teaching, educators are managing administrative tasks, accreditation and compliance documentation, and increased student support needs. One especially challenging demand is meeting students’ mental health concerns. These responsibilities are often added without removing existing expectations or compensation, creating an imbalance between workload and capacity.

Of note, leaders did not frame this as a problem of personal resilience or perseverance. Instead, they described faculty sustainability as a structural and educational issue that directly affects the quality of teaching and the consistency of student outcomes.

The deans and directors identified two areas in need of action:

The clinician-to-educator transition. A major contributor to faculty strain is the transition from clinical practice to academia. Many nursing faculty enter education as highly skilled clinicians but without formal preparation in teaching, assessment, and curriculum design.

Leaders described this transition as moving from expert to novice. New faculty are often expected to design courses, evaluate student performance, and navigate academic systems with limited orientation or standardized support.

This skills gap creates stress in multiple areas. As new faculty struggle to cultivate effective teaching practices, programs can experience inconsistencies in instruction and assessment. Attendees expressed strong interest in more structured onboarding, mentorship, and professional development to support this transition.

Workload, accountability, and student need. In addition to preparation gaps, leaders mentioned operational realities that compound faculty workload. Accountability mechanisms for both faculty and students are often inconsistent, making it difficult to maintain standards while supporting diverse learner needs.

A commonly cited dynamic was the disproportionate amount of time spent supporting a subset of students who require additional time and resources. A relatively small percentage of students can consume a large share of faculty time and emotional energy, the leaders said.

Alongside this demand on faculty, documentation requirements, compliance tracking, and classroom management demands continue to grow. Faculty must balance these responsibilities alongside teaching, often with limited support and increased expectations for accessibility and responsiveness. Attendees said this combination does not support healthy work-life balance for educators.

Takeaway: Improving faculty retention may depend less on individual supports and more on how programs structure roles, expectations and onboarding.

Concern 2: Student Preparedness

Although faculty challenges dominated the roundtable discussions, leaders also identified student issues that concern them. Many programs reported increased variability in academic preparedness, especially in foundational areas such as math and science.

Leaders also cited widening gaps in time management, independence and emotional regulation. In combination with external pressures such as finances and family responsibilities, these factors can negatively influence student persistence and performance.

Transfer students add another layer of complexity. Attendees said programs often have limited visibility into the rigor and outcomes of prerequisite coursework completed in other settings. The result can be an inaccurate picture of an applicant’s suitability for the program.

Leaders mentioned the importance of earlier, more holistic ways to assess student readiness, and they identified both academic indicators and nonacademic factors that affect success.

On the topic of student success, leaders consistently reframed NCLEX readiness as a program-level responsibility rather than a single intervention. They said approaches that integrate readiness across the curriculum as more effective overall, and cited backward curriculum design, continuous coaching, and data-informed decision-making as effective strategies.

Takeaway: Programs that rely solely on traditional academic indicators may miss key risk factors, reinforcing the need for more comprehensive readiness models.

Concern 3: Complexity in Systems & Technology

In the area of technology, leaders expressed interest in innovation but emphasized that systems must use it to reduce workload, not add to it.

Attendees cited fragmented platforms and disconnected tools as common barriers to embracing technology. Faculty often navigate multiple systems for learning management, assessment, tracking, and reporting, they said, and many of these do not communicate effectively.

Leaders expressed strong interest in more integrated, interoperable solutions, as well as clearer curriculum mapping and streamlined processes. They also cautioned that technology that introduces additional steps or complexity risks worsening the problems it aims to solve.

In the area of AI and automation, the group expressed cautious optimism. Leaders identified specific use cases, such as AI-assisted grading and feedback for written assignments, as having the potential to meaningfully reduce faculty workload.

At the same time, the leaders emphasized the importance of maintaining academic rigor and faculty oversight. They said they view AI as a potential support for time-intensive tasks and not a replacement for teaching or evaluation.

Another aspect of academic system complexity centered around program culture. Leaders said programs need clear policies, transparent communication, and consistent expectations.

When policies are well defined and the rationale behind them is clearly communicated, students are more likely to engage in meaningful remediation and skill development, they said. Attendees cited student town halls and peer-supported learning experiences as ways to build trust and reinforce shared responsibility.

And finally, attendees emphasized that culture should not be a secondary consideration. They described it as a central lever that influences faculty satisfaction, student confidence, and program effectiveness.

Takeaway: Reducing academic system complexity requires more than new tools. It demands connected platforms, targeted automation, and a program culture that supports clear expectations and shared accountability.

What Academic Nursing Leaders Are Seeking Now

The conversations that occurred during this event point to a common set of needs across programs:

• clearer priorities
• better alignment across systems and curriculum
• more realistic, structured support for faculty roles
• innovation that begins with teaching and learning, not addition of technology
• solutions that reduce cognitive, administrative and emotional burden
• long-term sustainability for faculty and programs.

Perhaps most importantly, the comments show that faculty support, student readiness, and program outcomes are interconnected. A helpful step forward may be to rethink the ways that faculty support, student success strategies, and academic systems are designed to work together to achieve optimal outcomes.