Manicuring Curriculum: Change for the Better?

(This five-part examination of proposed changes to California's manicuring curriculum highlights the failures of our present model of licensee training.)

California's Board of Barbering and Cosmetology has proposed changes to its manicuring curriculum, including an increase in required hours from 400 to 500. If done properly, the subsequent changes will make a constructive and significant impact on the manicuring profession for both consumers and licensees. If done poorly, the changes will make what has been acknowledged as a bad situation even worse.

The specific purpose of "revising the manicuring curriculum" should be to ensure that the required education produces licensed manicurists capable of working competently and safely in licensed establishments. A well-designed manicuring curriculum must be relevant, flexible and comprehensive. Based on scientifically accurate information, it must promote best practices, not perpetuate misinformation and an inadequate standard of practice as it does now.

Competence
The exceptionally poor work done by many manicurists undermines our profession and poses a serious risk to consumer safety. The average consumer mistakenly believes that a manicuring license proves technical competence. Why do we allow incompetent individuals to obtain licenses? Has the focus on safety obscured the benefits of requiring licensees to demonstrate quality work? If we continue to accept mediocrity as our standard of practice, we will continue to produce an incompetent workforce incapable of meeting the demands and expectations of consumers.

As a successful nail professional, I consider the competent performance of the following tasks fundamental to manicuring, regardless of "trends:"
• shaping the nails (trimming, filing, and buffing);
• conditioning the skin surrounding the nail (eponychium, not "cuticle");
• conditioning the skin of the hands and feet (exfoliating, moisturizing and massaging);
• smoothing (not removing) calluses;
• applying and removing polish;
• applying and removing artificial nails, including natural nail repairs;
• and most important, doing all of the above in a manner that protects the health and safety of consumers and the licensee.

Manicuring Curriculum: Change for the Better? Part 2

(This is the second part of an examination of proposed changes to California's manicuring curriculum.)

Additional Hours
Given the time already wasted in the existing 400-hour curriculum, does the Board believe that school instructors need "more time to lecture on the required health and safety topics?" The problem is not how much time schools spend "teaching" about health and safety. In fact, students could learn how to properly disinfect equipment, including what can and cannot be disinfected, in 60 minutes or less. Instead, the problem is the failure of licensees to follow the health and safety regulations after they leave school. Apparently, the school experience does not convince students that following state rules and regulations is not optional.

Consideration of alternatives? How did the Board "determine that no alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action?" Factual basis? Where is the empirical evidence that requiring additional hours would improve the quality of education? Requiring additional hours would likely discourage individuals from becoming students, produce a significant financial burden on those who do and unnecessarily delay their entry into this profession, without ANY guarantee of increased competence or consumer safety.

To assert that this curriculum proposal represents the most reasonable alternative is ludicrous. Why not create an apprenticeship program specifically for obtaining a manicurist license? If schools cannot provide a competent manicuring instructor, students would have a much better chance of developing good sanitation habits and their technical skills in a licensed establishment under the direct supervision of a licensed manicurist. If it's acceptable for cosmetology students to apprentice, why are aren't manicuring students offered a comparable opportunity "to become safe, knowledgeable licensees?"

Manicuring Curriculum: Change for the Better? Part 3

(This is the third part of an examination of proposed changes to California's manicuring curriculum.)

Technical Instruction vs. Practical Operation
One of the most significant changes proposed is the elimination of the minimum operations requirement. While this may simplify record-keeping, it does not address the fundamental problem with any time-based educational program: it values the quantity of time over the quality. To suggest that students spend all their time in technical instruction and/or practical operation defies reality. Much of the time in school is wasted "hanging out." The time students might spend studying independently (e.g. reading a textbook or trade magazine) is not even recognized as "technical instruction" according to the definition: "technical instruction shall mean instruction by demonstration, lecture, classroom participation, or examination."

Beauty schools will not likely devote more time to instruction, nor can they possibly supply enough clients to keep students busy all day. The definition of "practical operation" is anything but ("the actual performance by the student of a complete service on another person or on a mannequin"). What difference does it make if the student performs a "complete" service? If the student needed to focus on developing a particular skill (e.g. massage or polish application), he or she could only do so in the context of a complete manicure or pedicure? That's absurd.