Is this your district? Email the board to prioritize reading!
Email BoardSan Mateo-Foster City
San Mateo County school performance
San Mateo-Foster City is underperforming.
Reading and math results average to the 74th percentile among California school districts.
52.7% of students met California's reading standard, but it is trending down slightly.
50.5% of students met California's math standard, it is holding steady.
| Current Reading Proficiency | 52.7% |
| Current Math Proficiency | 50.5% |
| District Reading Rank | 323 / 977 (67th percentile) |
| District Math Rank | 193 / 977 (80th percentile) |
| Student / Teacher Ratio | 20:1 |
| Spend per Student | $22,009 |
| Schools in District | 21 |
| Student Enrollment | 9,906 |
| Low-Income Students | 3,821 (38.5%) |
| English Learners | 2,803 (28.2%) |
District Website
Great Schools
Niche
Ed-Data
CAASPPTest score trends
Reading fell 0.1 points from last year and fell 2.4 points over the full period. Math rose 1.0 points from last year and fell 0.2 points over the full period.
•Math -0.2 percentage pointsBoard Members
| name | elected | up for re-election |
|---|---|---|
Maggie Trinh Board President [email protected] | 2023 | 2028 |
Gene Kim Board Vice President [email protected] | 2023 | 2028 |
LaTisa M. Brooks Board Clerk [email protected] | N/A | N/A |
Stacey Ho Board Clerk [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Alison Proctor Board Trustee [email protected] | N/A | N/A |
Expand for details on low-income and english learner performance
Reading Proficiency Scores
Comparison of low-income and English learner groups using district-level CAASPP proficiency data.
Low-Income vs Non-Low-Income
Low-income students trail other students by 47.5 points in reading. It widened over the period shown.
•
English Learners vs English Native
6.5% of English learners meet the reading standard, compared with 66.5% of English-only students. The gap narrowed as English-learner results fell and English-only results fell.
•Math Proficiency Scores
Comparison of low-income and English learner groups using district-level CAASPP proficiency data.
Low-Income vs Non-Low-Income
Low-income students trail other students by 49.1 points in math. It widened over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
9.2% of English learners meet the math standard, compared with 63.1% of English-only students. The gap widened as English-learner results fell and English-only results rose.
•District School Map
Schools in this district, color-coded by reading proficiency.
Loading district map...
Hover over a school marker to see details
Schools
Understanding this district
How does San Mateo-Foster City rank in California?
San Mateo-Foster City ranks No. 323 of 977 in reading and No. 193 of 977 in math for 2026. These proficiency rankings compare districts across all district types.
How much do results vary between San Mateo-Foster City’s schools?
Among the 13 schools serving K–5, proficiency ranges from 3.6% to 82.3% in reading and 5.6% to 83.2% in math.
See the district’s schoolsAre results improving across San Mateo-Foster City’s schools?
Over 2024–2026, reading proficiency rose at 8 of 21 schools with results covering that full period; math rose at 9 of 21.
Compare school trendsHow do low-income students in San Mateo-Foster City compare with other districts?
Low-income reading proficiency is 26.7%, compared with 37.6% at a typical California elementary district. In math, it is 23.6%, compared with 28.2%.
See student-group resultsWhich districts should I compare with San Mateo-Foster City?
Elementary districts in San Mateo County. Peers have the closest enrollment sizes.
| District | Math | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| San Mateo-Foster CityThis district | 50.5% | 52.7% |
| Redwood City Elementary | 43.3% | 50.6% |
| Jefferson Elementary | 39.9% | 47.1% |
How we compare low-income results
“Typical” is the median across 444 California elementary districts with 2026 results, a reported low-income population, and at least 20 low-income tested students in each subject. Each district counts once. This compares proficiency for low-income students, rather than the gap between income groups.
