Replies
No one has replied to this post.
There are validation rules to enforce where RPL is true:
DurationReducedBy_01 Field is null / empty AND RecognisePriorLearning is True
PriceReducedBy _01 Field is null / empty AND RecognisePriorLearning is True
For the duration it must be a numeric character and it does say The duration this apprenticeship has been reduced by in weeks due to prior learning must be between 0 and 999.
Same as you Ben. We'd always reduce the price for RPL, but not always the duration when there is a fixed mandatory qualification that can't be shortened because of the delivery pattern. If we can enter 0, that's fine, as we'll be able to justify that.
My issue is that this has come out 11 days before the rule comes into force. I now need to work out how that info gets from the team who calculate this stuff, to the team who enter it on DAS (different departments), and in specifically a weeks and £ format. We can't just assume reduction is band max minus agreed price, there could be other factors at work. Same with duration. We do have broadly expected durations per Standard, but they might be longer or shorter for some individuals for all sorts of reasons, not just RPL. With this, we need to say specifically how much RPL reduced the duration, ignoring any other duration variations.
I wonder if PICs can get this sorted in time for the CSV Uploads to DAS? Would have to input the original duration and negotiated price to calculate the difference.
11 days reduction = 1 week OR 1.636 weeks OR 2 weeks? I would have thought days would be better if you don't allow decimals and don't provide any guidance and with 11 days notice. Then if you want it in weeks use a formula, that I can provide if required.
Gary Petley - I think it'll be whole numbers, and we round it, backed up by documentation if needed. I would not advise anyone to calculate the price or duration reduction based on default/usual values. There may be many reasons price and/or duration are changed per apprentice. "Usual" duration minus planned duration might be 6 weeks, but that might be 4 weeks due to RPL, and 2 weeks for some other reason. Same thing with price. If our software providers give us places to store this for the CSV, I would expect they'll just add two simple fields that we enter manually.
Ben James
Apprenticeship service update
Edited
In the update this week they've said they're making changes to the Apprenticeship Service to include a function for recording RPL.. but this presents us with a bit of an issue. The update states;
In theory this is great.. however, what if we say "yes" to RPL, but then state "0" in the 'reduction in weeks', do we presume it will fail validation and not go live? I know you are categorically meant to reduce the duration, but practically this can sometimes be very difficult for apprentices on degree programmes who will do modules at set times of the year, regardless of whether we've reduced the planned end date to account for RPL. This will surely mean that learners with RPL will simply go beyond their PED because there is no realistic way for universities to deliver bespoke training at different times of the year for these apprentices?