REGULATORY REIVEW 

I have been teaching esthetics for over 11 years at an Accredited school and the school is recognized by the US Department of Education to allow students with financial difficulty to apply for financial aid. I have given back to the industry by serving as a subject matter expert and a contributing author to textbooks used in esthetic schools across America and internationally. I work tirelessly to help my students find hope and a new future a career in esthetics and master esthetics.  

During the past 11 years, I have seen the requirements that we have to teach increase due to technological advances, yet we have not been afforded additional time to teach those requirements. 

As an accredited school we seek employers’ input and have employers on our advisory board.  I have seen that employers have systematically ask for more highly qualified individuals to fill their job requirements over the past 11 years which is directly correlated to the increase in technological advances in our industry and consumer demand, yet we have not been afforded additional time to teach those requirements.   

Add more to teach …. and give us less time to do it …. this is not logistically possible.   

The landscape of our industry has changed dramatically over the past 11 years.   

The change is towards growth & advancement and moving forward for the future …. not regression and retraction of our industry as the board has proposed.  

By discussing restrictions on online theory topics, hour reductions and dismissal or merging of the entire level of master esthetics the board is enacting barriers into the profession and obstacles for the school’s ability preparing our graduates for employment and success in the industry – not to mention concern for the health, safety, and welfare and of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia.   These steps backwards are setting the schools and the students up for failure.  These steps backwards are setting up employers for failure. Where does that leave the industry and it’s consumers? 

REMOVING THE CHOICE TO CHOOSE ACADEMIC LEVEL 

During the time that I have been teaching there has been a clear and distinct differentiation between individuals who choose to go to master level or individuals who are not academically prepared to go to master level. By removing choices and forcing people who don’t want to or are not capable of embarking upon master level academic topics you are enacting barriers into entry into the profession and putting people at risk. 

ONLINE THEORY TOPICS  

Many of my students are single mothers who are very restricted financially and having the ability to do work online in the convenience of their own home which helps reduce the burden of childcare.  

Many students do not have their own cars or gas money and they are borrowing people’s cars to get to school.  Many students who have cars find that their cars are not mechanically sound and reliable which also poses other attendance problems.  Allowing online topics allow people to come to school who would not normally be able to do so due to financial burdens.  

Why create obstacles that lead to students giving up and failing?  

Shouldn’t we be trying to be a champion of the people … to help them succeed and finish and creating a better life for themselves and their family? 

When I spoke to my class about the board considering to reduce the number of theory topics or the theory hours online the first question that was posed to me is why are we being discriminated against? They asked me why every college across America whether it’s a community college or university allow their students to do all theory online yet we may be restricted. 

My question to the board is: Are you interested in helping people get started in their career or are you interested in posing over burdensome regulations that enact barriers to entry into the profession and create financial burden for those who need financial assistance? 

The US Department of Education that is has one of the highest standards allows for online theory and so does the national accrediting agencies.   Additionally, and most importantly, the entity that regulates post-secondary schools in the state of Virginia called SCHEV whose primary task is protecting student interests allows all theory to be taught online.  

Why would a board that has been tasked with “a primary goal of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia when receiving treatments” attempt to limit theory in a school? It helps everyone and harms no one…. this is not a consumer safety issue.   

If students can pass their licensing exam, why does it matter?   

HOUR REDUCTION: SAFETY, EMPLOYABILITY AND CAREER SUCCESS ISSUES 

 When discussing hour reductions / education reductions with employers for our graduate job placement assistance program and the impact it would have on our employers they expressed grave concern.   

They said that they are not interested in nor do they have the manpower or financial ability to develop in-depth new employee training programs.  Every time someone starts at a new spa, they already have to give them product training as each spa may use a different product line but they also have to do new hire training and onboarding. That is all they are willing to take on.   

Consumer demand will not decrease, employer demand will not decrease, there will just be a wide gap between a prepared graduate and the job that they must stretch to reach that they are not prepared to be successful in.  

Why would the board want to set graduates up for failure and shorten the lifespan of someone’s career?  

Why would the board want to put an unfair burden on employers and bring safety risk to clients because employers are not set up to be educators? 

 Since the implementation of the curriculum the industry has grown, technology has advanced and so has the number of topics that schools have been responsible for adding.  Hours should stay the same or be increased not decreased.   

DISOLUTION OR MERGING OF MASTER PROGRAM 

 In the last boarding meeting, some very concerning statements were made publicly by a board member: 

 “Master esthetics should be dissolved because people can’t afford to go to the next level.”  

“Most people can’t afford to do both.” 

“No employment opportunities for basic estheticians” 

With all due respect, I don’t feel these statements are factually correct and are not representative of our industry.   

It is concerning to me that these factually incorrect statements were made.  

It is even more concerning to me that the board members acted upon this factually incorrect information and initiated action to be taken by the board and for the board to vote to have these topics referred to a committee which would negatively impact the esthetician community and industry. It would impact clients, employers, students, and graduates.   

Why should everyone in the industry and everyone who potentially wants to become part of the industry be impacted because one person believes that because someone cannot afford a higher level of educational attainment that it should no longer exist?  

 Are we going to eliminate the medical doctor degree because people can only afford to become a surgical tech?   

Why are we taking away choices? 

I have first-hand experience with helping our students through our job placement assistance program. While we do have companies who only want to hire master esthetician graduates due to the nature of their business, we don’t have a problem with job placement assistance for our basic graduates. 

Also, as a lead instructor at the school, I have also encountered students who initially wanted to go to the master level but realized that due to time constraints they’re not able to study to academically achieve the academic demand of the master level topic so forcing them to take that by merging the master into the basic program would set them up for failure.   

Basic level affords for people who are wanting to service their clients with a more natural or holistic approach such as a school in Virginia called the Aveda institute. Some grads only want to wax or do lashes.  Not everybody wants to learn chemicals and the in depth procedures in the master level.  Many of the schools that focus on basic training are accredited and we were able to research their placement rates and they were passing the required rate to maintain their accreditation and financial aid approval.   

Board decisions should be made with factual data. 

All of my points have factually established that the current 600 esthetician 600 master esthetician, current regulations and curriculum should stand to ensure consumer safety.    

While this is not a consumer safety issue, this is an issue that speaks about removal of barriers into entry into the industry. A lot of students need financial support. When you reduce the number of hours you must consider that many students are receiving Pell grants that allow them to essentially go to school for free.   That means zero free money grants.   

Why is it that the governor has pushed an initiative to reduce the barriers into the careers of career colleges and vocational training …. yet the governor has not reduced the barriers to the amount of training required for useless two-year and four-year degrees that get students nowhere.  

 Our training centers and our programs provide hope for a better life and hope for gainful employment and opportunities to people who have never had opportunities available to them before.  

What right do we have to crush their dreams of being independent of welfare and the opportunity for employment and a future for themselves and their family?  

 Most of these people are single mothers who have children to support that are just trying to make a better life for them and their children.  

 I respectfully ask that you please consider all of this when making your decisions.