chose these variables since they may be correlated with the impact of the material on financial knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. We were not able to match on variables collected through our surveys because the randomization had to take place before the baseline survey to enable the program to train the teachers on time. Municipal level variables used in the randomization come from the Brazilian Statistical Institute (IBGE) and refer to 2009. School level variables used in the randomization are for 2008 and were provided by the Federal Ministry of Education (2009 data were not yet available at the time of randomization).

Randomization was done by us and through a computer, implying that any differences across the treatment and control group are due to pure chance. After the randomization was completed, we had to move three control schools to the treatment group manually since some states requested that at least one school in each school district participate in the program. We chose these schools at random among the schools in the school district and drop them and their pairs from the analysis. Also, after the randomization was completed but before the program was implemented, we discovered that twelve schools indicated by the Instituto Unibanco decided not to participate in the pilot. We drop these schools and their pairs from the analysis also. In addition, five schools had accidentally been listed twice (three were on both the state ministries’ and Instituto Unibanco lists and two were duplicated on the state ministries’ lists). We randomly chose which entry to drop (along with their pair). Another six treatment group schools from São Paulo did not participate in any of our surveys for unknown reasons. We drop these schools from our sample along with their pairs. In the end, we are left with 868 schools for the analysis – 432 in the treatment group and 436 in the control group. The majority of the schools are located in the most populous states, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Ceará.

# **4.3. Sample Selection for Parent Intervention**

For the implementation of the parent workshops, treatment schools sent in a list of current students enrolled in the class receiving financial education during the spring of 2011. Only schools that sent the list were included in the study as this was taken as a signal that they were willing to implement the workshop. We used these lists instead of relying on information from earlier surveys because of potential student turnover from one school year to the next. A total of 264 treatment schools provided a list, covering 8,534 students.

We matched the lists with data from the baseline parent survey on the basis of the student’s name, and stratified and randomly assigned parents in each school into treatment and control groups by computer. We used the following strata: (1) no baseline information on parents; (2) parent had low baseline financial literacy; and (3) parent had high baseline financial literacy. We defined the level of baseline financial literacy based on the number of correct answers to the two Instituto Unibanco list, we stratified by financial institutions per capita, but we only matched on school-level variables, not on municipality level variables, since many of these schools were located in the same municipalities, restricting the possible matches for the remaining schools.

11