each grade. In each intervention division, 15 schools were randomly sampled from the basic list satisfying the above mentioned conditions. Similarly, 10 schools were randomly sampled in non-intervention divisions. In Antique (an intervention division) we added 2 more schools since we found that 2 schools were severely damaged in a typhoon in 2006. Therefore, we have 17 schools in Antique.

Third, we collected lists of students enrolled at Grade 6 in SY 1999/00, SY2004/05 and SY2005/06. SY1999/00 is a pre-intervention cohort, while both SY2004/05 and 2005/06 are cohorts that were exposed to a school intervention if they lived in the intervention divisions. If schools did not keep student lists, we replaced them with schools that were randomly re-sampled from the basic school lists. The process required several months in each division.<sup>11</sup> We randomly sampled 15 students from the SY1999/00 Grade 6 class, and 20 students together from the Grade 6 classes of SY2004/05 and 2005/06. The sampling was done regardless of gender and age. Note that since the listed students are those who were enrolled at that time, some of our sample students might not have graduated from their elementary schools.<sup>12</sup> In the student tracking survey, we tracked our sample students to collect information on their schooling and work histories in detail as well as marriage, anthropometry and illness. The survey successfully tracked 3,451 cases out of the total of 3,487 students, which resulted in the tracking rate of 98.97%. Either face-to-face or phone interview was adopted. There were two stages in tracking activities. First, the teams tracked students who lived within their original divisions. This was done immediately after the household survey. Second, in the case of out-of-division tracking, the teams attempted to schedule face-to-face interviews with students who lived in the National Capital Region (NCR; Manila), Baguio and Cebu City. The teams tried to visit students who lived within the sample provinces, the above three metropolitan areas, or between northern Luzon and Manila to conduct face-to-face interviews. For students who lived outside these areas, we basically used phone interviews.

Table 1 shows the composition of our sample households and students. We have a total of 3,451 students in our sample. TEEP divisions and cohorts (school years of 2004/05 and 2005/06) are over-sampled. Among TEEP divisions, Ifugao shows smaller numbers in each grade-6 sample year due to the decision to drop some unreliable and unverified information in the second visit in the division.

Table 2 shows the highest grade completed. Though our sample has different age groups (cohorts) due to its sampling design, the majority of our students completed four years of high school. This is highly expected since even TEEP students (grade-6 in SY 2004/05 and 2005/06) would be expected to reach age 17 in the survey period (note that children graduate from high school at age 15/16 if they had no delay or repetition in schooling).<sup>13</sup> To characterize poverty levels of our sample households, we construct asset values in 2000 (evaluated at the 2010 price). The household survey collected information on asset holdings and values in 2010. For 2000, we only captured the holdings. Using the unit values in 2010 and asset holdings in 2000, it is

> 11 In Neuva Viscaya, it was difficult to have student lists from one school at the early stage, so this school was omitted from our sample. Instead we increased the number of students from two large schools (the total number of sample students in the division is kept the same).

> 12 We used enrollees as the basis since graduation creates sample selection.

> 13 Note that they often started experiencing works while enrolled in school.

5