Beyond the State Board: Why Esthetics Education Must Go Further

Every educational curriculum reflects a series of decisions about what deserves to be taught and what can be left out. Those decisions matter because they shape not only what future professionals know, but also what they learn to overlook.

In esthetics, no textbook has had more influence than Milady. Used by beauty schools across the United States, it has become the foundation upon which thousands of estheticians begin their careers. Its primary purpose is to prepare students for state licensure, and in that regard it has served an important role. However, preparing students to pass an examination is not the same as preparing them to care for the diversity of skin they will encounter in practice.

The state board establishes the minimum standard for licensure. It should not define the maximum standard for education.

An esthetician's greatest responsibility begins after the examination is over—when a client sits in the treatment room expecting safe, informed, and individualized care. At that moment, memorizing classifications or identifying contraindications is only part of the job. Practitioners must understand how skin behaves across different populations, how inflammation presents in varying skin tones, how barrier function influences treatment decisions, and how cultural practices, environmental factors, and pigment biology shape skin health.

These topics deserve greater attention than they often receive.

Traditional esthetics education has historically emphasized frameworks developed primarily through research conducted on lighter skin populations. While these systems provide valuable foundations, they do not always account for the biological behaviors commonly observed in melanin-rich skin. As a result, many graduates enter practice confident in performing procedures while feeling less prepared to recognize delayed inflammation, pigment reactivity, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, or the unique considerations involved in treating darker skin safely.

This is not an argument against Milady or against beauty schools.

It is an argument for expanding what we teach.

Educators have an opportunity to encourage curiosity rather than memorization alone. Students should be invited to ask why certain frameworks exist, what their limitations may be, and where additional research is needed. Scientific knowledge evolves, and professional education should evolve with it.

The same responsibility extends to beauty schools serving diverse communities. Many schools educate predominantly Black and Brown students who will eventually care for clients with similar skin types. Their education should reflect the populations they are most likely to serve. Even supplemental lectures, case studies, or workshops on melanin-rich skin could significantly strengthen clinical judgment and improve client outcomes.

Education is never static. It grows through observation, research, discussion, and the willingness to question long-held assumptions. When we expand our curriculum, we do not diminish existing knowledge—we strengthen it.

The future of esthetics should not be measured solely by the number of students who pass the licensing examination.

It should also be measured by the quality of care those professionals provide once they enter the treatment room.

Because clients deserve practitioners who understand more than how to perform a procedure.

They deserve practitioners who understand the skin in front of them.