Reading Between the SOFI Lines: When “No Money for Support” Doesn’t Add Up

Each year, school districts in British Columbia are required to publish a Statement of Financial Information, commonly referred to as a SOFI. This document is not optional. It must be made publicly available and is posted on the district websites as part of the annual financial reporting requirements set by the Government of British Columbia. The SOFI is intended to allow the public to see how education dollars are being spent. Parents should be reading it, particularly when they are told there is “no money” for student support.

The SOFI includes a statement of financial position showing what a district owns and owes, and a statement of operations outlining revenues and expenses for the year. It also contains several mandatory schedules that are critical for public understanding. Among these is a schedule of remuneration and expenses for employees earning $75,000 or more, and a schedule of payments to suppliers and contractors paid $25,000 or more. These disclosures provide one of the few windows parents have into district level spending decisions, especially those made by senior management and administrative leadership.

For employees earning over $75,000, the SOFI must list each individual by name, along with their total salary and the actual expenses claimed by that employee. This detail matters. Expenses are not reported as a single district total. They are attached to specific individuals and roles. This allows parents to see not only who occupies senior and district-level positions, but also how much additional spending is associated with those positions beyond salary alone. Training, travel, workshops, meals, and other discretionary costs are often embedded here, even as classrooms are told to make do with less.

What the SOFI does not provide is an explanation of what those expenses were for. The disclosure shows amounts, not purposes. Parents can see that expenses were incurred, but they cannot see whether those costs supported classrooms, inclusive education, student needs, or administrative priorities. This lack of context limits meaningful public understanding, even when the numbers themselves are visible.

The same limitation applies to payments to external vendors over $25,000. The SOFI lists the name of the payee and the amount paid, but not the service provided. Parents who want to understand legal spending, consulting costs, or contracted services often need to cross-reference the names of law firms or consultants with the vendor payment schedule. Even then, the SOFI shows only how much was paid, not what work was done, why it was necessary, or whose interests it served.

This matters because school districts routinely claim there is “no money for support.” Families are told there are insufficient funds for education assistants, learning supports, psychologists, inclusive programming, or meaningful accommodations. Yet when parents examine the SOFI, they may see steady and ongoing spending tied to district management salaries, employee expense claims, professional development, consulting services, legal fees, and external vendors. The money is there. It is being allocated elsewhere.

When districts frame student support as financially impossible while administrative and management spending remains largely unquestioned, the issue is not simply budget constraints. It is about priorities, decision making, and accountability.

Parents deserve more than reassurances. They deserve information they can use. Reading the SOFI, understanding the disclosure thresholds, reviewing district level salaries and expense claims, and examining payments to vendors are concrete steps families can take to better understand how education dollars are actually being spent.

If public education is meant to be accountable to the public, transparency must be something people can actually use, not just a compliance exercise.