Board hears draft report on cosmetology apprenticeship program; staff, members call for changes

Board staff presented a draft report on the state’s cosmetology and barbering apprenticeship program at the Feb. 10 meeting, describing systemic problems staff said require regulatory and legislative attention.

Why it matters: Apprenticeships are a state-supported pathway into licensing designed to allow training while earning pay. The board’s report identified gaps in oversight that, staff and board members said, put apprentices at risk of high fees, inadequate training and poor workplace protections. The findings have implications for a 2026 sunset review and potential legislative changes.

What staff reported: The board presented data showing low overall pass rates for apprentices and particularly low pass rates for Spanish-language test takers in 2024 (approximately 22% pass rate reported for cosmetology Spanish-language examinees in apprenticeship pathways). Staff described several recurring problems: - High tuition and fees charged by some apprenticeship sponsors or third-party training facilities (staff reported averages around $7,000 and instances substantially higher), and additional administrative and penalty fees charged directly to apprentices. - “Franchising” of related‑training: entities not approved as program sponsors advertising apprenticeships and charging large fees while operating under the sponsor/affiliate label; staff identified about 76 training facilities with roughly 40% appearing to enroll apprentices under their own business name. - Weak oversight of related training and instructors: no statutory requirement that instructors meet specified qualifications or that Spanish‑language students be provided Spanish-language instruction or approved Spanish-language textbooks tied to the exam. - On-the-job training shortfalls: apprentices sometimes left unsupervised or treated like employees, with incomplete or backfilled training logs and deficient completion forms when candidates seek the exam. - Wage and workers’ compensation problems: reports that apprentices are paid on commission, sometimes “under the table,” or asked to obtain their own workers’ compensation rather than being covered by the employer.

Staff noted federal and state funding sources might be available for apprenticeship programs but said the report’s funding section was not complete and further analysis was forthcoming. Staff also confirmed the board currently spends significant staff time on apprenticeship-related complaints and investigations; the board’s licensing unit sees a high share of deficient applications from apprentices, which increases processing burden.

Board and stakeholder response: Board members across the ideological mix voiced concern, called the report “timely,” and urged fast action. Member Kelly Funk and others urged the board to press for clear accountability — for sponsors, for related-training facilities, and for Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) that affiliate with sponsors for classroom instruction. Several commenters urged regulatory fixes plus legislative action through the board’s forthcoming sunset report, which offers a formal opportunity to request statute changes.

Public commenters included representatives from LEAs and trade groups. John Simadeh of the San Joaquin County Office of Education (an LEA) offered historical context and pledged local-agency cooperation. Fred Jones of the Professional Beauty Federation urged stakeholders to convene and warned that industry structure (many independent contractors and small employers) complicates classic apprenticeship models. A local salon owner urged the board to develop clear, practical guidance for employers who are asked to be apprenticeship mentors.

Board direction and next steps: Staff said this is a draft and more analysis will follow. Members signaled support for including apprenticeship-related reforms in the board’s 2026 sunset report and for exploring regulatory and statutory options — for example, clarifying sponsor and training-provider responsibilities, setting instructor or curriculum standards, and requiring evidence that apprentices received approved materials or instruction in the language of test administration. Staff will prepare further details and potential regulatory or legislative language to present to the board in future meetings.

Ending: Members and stakeholders urged rapid follow-up. Staff committed to further analysis and to presenting refined recommendations — including funding and enforcement implications — at the next meeting or in a dedicated follow-up session.