Board asks licensing unit to review hairdresser exam blueprint after educators raise concerns

Board members raised concerns that current cosmetology and barber exam content places substantial weight on skin care and nail services that may not reflect the state-authorized scope of practice for cosmetologists and barbers.

The chair described reports from schools that students encounter exam questions “that were not included in their studies,” and said some candidates reported being asked multiple questions about facials rather than hair services. “It seems like there are way too many questions on skin care and nail care where the focus for both barber and hairdressers should be hair care,” the chair said.

Katrina, a Prometric representative, said Prometric’s exams are developed on a national basis by subject-matter experts using standard textbooks and follow a content blueprint published in the candidate information bulletin. “All of the exam questions are based on content within the Milady and the Pivot Point books,” she said, and added that an alternate theory exam called “hair design” focuses strictly on hair topics (about 45% scientific concepts and 55% haircare and services).

Steven Carriger, manager of the practitioner licensing unit, told the board the department would be willing to review any alternative exam blueprint Katrina can provide and work with the board to determine whether an alternate exam should be adopted. Carriger noted that exam requirements are established through a process involving the department and the board and said switching the administered computer-based exam should be feasible once the parties agree on the content outline.

Board members discussed curriculum-hour allocations (including classroom and clinical hours for skin-care content) and the separate licensing tracks for nails and aesthetics. The licensing unit did not record a formal vote on changing exams during the meeting; Carriger and Katrina said the next practical step is for Katrina to provide the exam blueprint and for the department’s licensing staff to compare it to the state curriculum and current exam blueprint.

The board agreed to pursue that review; no statutory changes or formal motions to change the exam were recorded in the transcript.

The meeting then adjourned.