Trump Administration Considers Future of Beauty and Cosmetology School Accreditation

The Trump administration is evaluating the future of an accreditor that oversees about 1,300 beauty and cosmetology schools, involving over 120,000 students. This decision could test the administration’s approach to higher education accreditation beyond the diversity, equity, and inclusion issues that usually dominate the discussion. During the 2024 campaign, President Donald Trump promised to remove what he saw as politically biased accreditors, using accreditation as a tool against institutions he believed had been influenced by the political left.

This case, now under review by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), differs. It revolves around whether the National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences (NACCAS) complies with federal requirements and the potential outcomes if it does not. The stakes are high for students, as DOE-approved accreditation is typically required for schools to participate in federal student aid programs.

“Many beauty and cosmetology schools may lose their official accreditations under a review at the U.S. Department of Education.” — Fox News

Currently, DOE staff have identified issues with NACCAS but suggest continuing its federal recognition under certain conditions, including additional reporting and monitoring to ensure alignment with standards. However, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) has taken a stricter stance. At a recent meeting, it voted 9-3 to recommend that the department deny NACCAS renewed recognition.

The DOE has yet to make a final decision. A representative from the department explained that accreditor recognition is reviewed every five years through a three-step process, involving recommendations from DOE staff, independent bipartisan NACIQI, and a senior department official’s final judgment. Ongoing processes mean the DOE won’t comment on specifics yet.

The federal process prompts concerns among students about a critical funding source. Aliyah Fernandez, a recent Hollywood Institute cosmetology graduate, emphasized that federal financial aid was crucial for her education.

I couldn’t have afforded beauty school without federal financial aid. It allowed me to attend at all. — Aliyah Fernandez

Just like Fernandez, Blythe Fields, an expectant mother studying cosmetology, highlighted the importance of financial aid. Previously, she funded her esthetician training out-of-pocket, which was financially draining. Now working and studying long days, Fields noted that financial aid helps her continue education while preparing for her child’s arrival. She supports the idea of monitored improvement for NACCAS instead of outright denial, mentioning she started a petition for this cause.

This case contrasts with the accreditation practices Trump emphasized in an executive order from April. The order directed the DOE to investigate accreditors for potential unlawful discrimination through DEI standards. However, the NACCAS issue focuses on compliance and oversight, not DEI standards.

Smith Ellis, a former DOE official, recommended denying NACCAS renewed recognition, citing previous opportunities for NACCAS to address compliance issues and concerns about debt and earnings of students at accredited institutions. In contrast, Robert Eitel advocated for NACCAS to correct deficiencies instead of losing recognition.

The disagreement highlights different perspectives on handling accreditation for beauty and cosmetology schools. For people like Fields, who see beauty careers as undervalued, the resolution could significantly impact their chosen futures. Despite contrasting views, the outcome will have lasting effects on schools and students involved.