The main data we look at for attainment is the census data from StatsCan, which is what the minister spoke to in part. Some of the earlier questions dealt with the department's reporting. Again, those are very different facets of the population. The census is 18 to 24; there's voluntary identification, and its attainment level...with secondary being the highest level of education attainment.
The graduation rates that have been published in departmental reports have decreased over time, but within that is part of the issue pointed out by the Auditor General, and the reason the methodology has changed. That is informed by engaging with our partners as well, through co-development and transformation, to get to a more representative cohort graduation. That's what our partners are telling us. Many of them agreed with the Auditor General, as well, that it was too focused on the graduation rate in the past.
Those are the concrete measures we've taken. The results are not up for publishing yet. They will be included in the next round of reports and will create the baseline for going forward, to capture what changed in 2015, as you asked, and the transformation in 2019.
I also have to flag that co-development is a key part of this. We learn from setting top-down expectations. We work to co-develop at the venues that I discussed a bit earlier, with partners. It takes time for that.
Also, COVID has been hugely disruptive. Not only did the transformation in 2019 change the program structure, the reporting and the funding, but right after that was COVID, which disrupted the launch of the implementation of the new program.
Again, the highest-level indicator that we discuss is the graduation rate, which will be in departmental reports. It will make more sense with the census approach. It's a very different cohort and a very different age grouping, but we hope those two facets, based on what we've discussed with partners, will show that movement over time of the impact of the changes.