Picture a woman who completes every course required for her degree, balances a job, raises children, and reaches the final stage of her training, only to discover that the hundreds of hours she must complete next are legally unpaid. In 43 states, employers who would gladly compensate her for that work are prohibited from doing so. If policymakers want a response to workforce shortages, economic mobility, and the labor disruptions already emerging from artificial intelligence, they should start by removing this outdated restriction.
The policy change I am advocating does not require a new federal program, a major spending package, or an employer mandate. It simply allows employers to pay apprentices for required clinical and field-based training hours if they choose to do so. Seven states have already modernized their laws. The remaining 43 should do the same.
This issue matters because the profile of today's learner has changed dramatically, while much of the legislation governing workforce preparation has remained frozen in a different era. Many of the policies governing clinical and field-based training were developed decades ago, when assumptions about who pursued higher education looked different. Policymakers often envisioned students as young adults supported by families, attending school full-time before entering the workforce.
That is no longer the reality. According to the 2025 New Majority Learner Report from Genio, 40.2% of college students are older than 22, 39.2% attend part-time, and 69.3% work while studying. The Postsecondary National Policy Institute reports that 47.6% of post-traditional students have dependent children. These numbers tell a story that should influence every workforce policy discussion. The typical learner is increasingly a working adult balancing employment, caregiving responsibilities, transportation costs, rent, and rising household expenses while pursuing education.
When policymakers design training systems around assumptions that no longer reflect the population they serve, predictable consequences follow. Learners who successfully navigate years of coursework often encounter a final obstacle that has little to do with academic performance or professional aptitude. They simply cannot afford to stop earning income.
I have spent my career working on pathways that connect education and employment, and I repeatedly encounter learners who are fully committed to entering professions that communities urgently need. Their challenge is not motivation. Their challenge is math. A parent supporting children cannot easily absorb hundreds of hours of unpaid work, even when the credential waiting on the other side promises long-term economic mobility.
This becomes especially troubling when viewed alongside the scale of workforce demand. The care economy faces more than one million vacancies across occupations that support education, healthcare, and community well-being. At the same time, apprenticeship pathways in teaching, nursing, social work, and related fields are expanding rapidly. Last month, teaching apprenticeships reached a milestone with programs now established in all 50 states. Interest in apprenticeship pathways continues to grow, particularly among younger learners seeking employment experience, income, and educational attainment simultaneously.
The pipeline exists. The demand exists. The learners exist. The obstacle sits inside statutes that prevent employers from investing in the very talent they need.
Some may worry that allowing paid clinical hours would create new obligations for employers or strain public budgets. That concern misunderstands the proposal. The goal is permission, not compulsion. No hospital, school district, nonprofit organization, or care provider would be required to pay apprentices. The change would simply remove legal barriers that currently prevent employers from doing so.
Consider the practical implications. A healthcare employer may have a high-performing frontline worker who wants to advance into a licensed profession. The employer has vacancies to fill, resources available, and every incentive to support that individual's progression. Yet in much of the country, outdated statutes prevent compensation during required training hours. The result is a workforce system that blocks employers from solving their own talent shortages.
Evidence from the states that have already modernized their laws suggests there is nothing inherently partisan about addressing this problem. Alabama, Arkansas, California, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Texas represent different political traditions, economic structures, and geographic contexts. They did not adopt identical solutions. Some created specialized apprenticeship frameworks, while others revised broader statutory language. Their common achievement was removing the prohibition itself.
That diversity matters because it demonstrates that modernization is compatible with a wide range of policy philosophies. California and Arkansas rarely appear together on short lists of legislative priorities, yet both concluded that preventing employers from compensating apprentices no longer served the public interest. Their experience offers a roadmap for other states seeking reforms that fit local circumstances.
The urgency extends beyond workforce shortages alone. Artificial intelligence is already changing hiring patterns across industries that historically provided entry points into the labor market. Administrative roles, clerical functions, and certain knowledge-based tasks are becoming increasingly automated. Meanwhile, demand for human-centered professions continues to grow. Care-economy occupations require judgment, trust, communication, and interpersonal connections that remain difficult to replicate through technology.
For workers displaced by automation, these professions offer a credible path into stable employment. Yet that opportunity remains inaccessible if training systems require months of unpaid labor. A working parent seeking to transition into a new career cannot build a future on a pathway that requires abandoning a paycheck.
There is another dimension that deserves attention from both policymakers and funders. Communities frequently seek workforces that reflect the people they serve. Employers across the care economy often discuss the value of recruiting professionals who understand local cultures, languages, and lived experiences. Unpaid training requirements disproportionately affect individuals with significant financial responsibilities, narrowing participation among precisely the populations many institutions hope to attract. Allowing paid apprenticeship hours expands access while strengthening representation within critical professions.
The solution is remarkably straightforward. Policymakers do not need to invent an entirely new model. They can examine the seven states that have already modernized their laws, identify a comparable state, adapt the legislative language, and pass it. Philanthropic funders can accelerate progress by encouraging workforce organizations, higher education institutions, and employer partnerships to prioritize these reforms.
The apprenticeships already exist. Employers are asking for talent. Learners are ready to work. A century-old prohibition should not be the reason they never cross the finish line.
About the Author
Mallory Dwinal-Palisch is President of Craft Education, a workforce data platform within the nonprofit WGU ecosystem focused on expanding work-based learning pathways across higher education and employment systems. Her work has focused on connecting educators, employers, and policymakers to create scalable apprenticeship and earn-and-learn opportunities. A former educator and education entrepreneur, she has spent her career advancing pathways that help learners gain meaningful work experience while earning credentials that support long-term career mobility and economic opportunity.
