What if Beauty Education Was Guided by Public Health?

If we trained therapists with public health in mind—not just cosmetic outcomes—we’d educate the nation by extension. Yet, the beauty curriculum remains built around appearance, not anatomy. That’s the missing link.

“I’m a therapist. I’ve never felt completely comfortable with parts of my beauty training. Some of the content felt outdated—especially when it came to the skin barrier. When I asked, ‘Why are we still removing it?’ the tutors said, ‘Because that’s the curriculum we’re told to deliver—until someone tells us otherwise.’”

But who is that “someone”?

How Beauty Education Is Structured Across the UK

Beauty therapy education in the UK sits within national vocational frameworks. Each nation regulates its own qualifications:

England: Regulated by Ofqual and overseen by the Department for Education (DfE)
Wales: Regulated by Qualifications Wales
Northern Ireland: Regulated by CCEA Regulation
Scotland: Qualifications developed and regulated by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA)

Across all nations, several shared players shape content:

HABIA (Hair and Beauty Industry Authority) – the standards-setting body for National Occupational Standards (NOS). These guide curriculum design, but do not legally control it.
Awarding Bodies – such as VTCT, City & Guilds, and CIBTAC. They design qualifications using the NOS and ensure centres meet assessment requirements.
Training Centres – deliver those qualifications under quality assurance from awarding bodies and regulators.

So far, so organised — at least on paper.

But Here’s What’s Missing

Despite this multi-layered system, there is no statutory input from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), NHS England, UKHSA, or NICE in the design of the core skin-therapy curriculum.

That means no public-health guidance on:

• what constitutes skin health
• recognising systemic links
• when and how to refer to medical professionals
• barrier science or inflammation management
• lifestyle and environmental influences on the skin

In short: therapists are trained to work on a vital organ, but their foundational education has no national health framework.

The Wild West of Unregulated Courses

Alongside regulated qualifications, a growing number of private providers offer short or online courses that sit entirely outside the regulated system. Many use reassuring terms like “certified” or “CPD-approved,” but those terms have no legal definition.

Without Ofqual oversight or awarding-body scrutiny, such courses may rely on outdated or unsafe practices — leaving both practitioners and the public exposed to unnecessary risk.

Even the Regulated Pathway Has Gaps

Regulated courses still aren’t required to align with national health policy. HABIA sets standards; awarding bodies design qualifications; training centres teach them.

But none of these stages is formally required to consult DHSC, NHS, UKHSA or NICE guidance.
Whatever informal reading occurs behind the scenes, there is no mandatory health-agency influence on curriculum content.

This leaves two systems that rarely meet:

• one for educational quality
• one for health and safety

And skin education sits squarely between them.

A Clearer Contrast

Many vocational qualifications in the UK are overseen by the Department for Education and regulated by Ofqual. But when a profession affects public wellbeing, its curriculum must align with health, welfare, or safety standards — even if those standards originate outside the DfE.

Childcare is a good example.
Early-years qualifications sit within the education framework, but the statutory EYFS incorporates requirements derived from safeguarding law and child-health guidance issued by NHS and public-health agencies. In other words: health frameworks shape the content, even if they are not listed as formal regulators.

Food handling works the same way.
The qualification is delivered through the DfE/Ofqual system, but all training must reflect Food Standards Agency legislation and public-health law. Health protection is built into the curriculum by necessity.

But beauty therapy — the only field working directly on the body’s largest organ — has no equivalent requirement.
The qualification is regulated, yet the health content is not guided by DHSC, NHS England, UKHSA, NICE, or any national skin-health framework.

It leaves skin education uniquely positioned:
regulated as a qualification,
but untethered from public-health guidance — even though it concerns an organ that protects, senses, and signals the state of the whole body.

Why This Matters Now

England is preparing to introduce a new licensing scheme for higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures under the Health and Care Act 2022. That framework will define who can perform what, and at what depth, when working with the skin.

Yet we still lack a national health-based foundation for the people who educate, advise, and treat the skin day to day. Until public health is written into the base of the beauty curriculum, regulation will always be reactive, not preventative.

The Skin Well Asks

If skin is an organ — one that protects, senses, and communicates the health of the body — shouldn’t the people trained to treat it be guided by a national public-health framework, not just industry standards?

Maybe it’s time for full statutory oversight in beauty education — so every professional who touches the skin does so with a shared understanding of the organ itself.

Related Open Letters / Articles

• Open Letter 1: Who’s Guiding Skin Health in Beauty Training?

• Open Letter 4: When Skin Therapists Are Left Out

• Why is There No Health Oversight in Beauty Therapy Education 

Updated Nov25
Focus: England, where the Department for Education and DHSC operate. The model may differ in devolved nations.