Seeing Literacy Instruction More Clearly in San Mateo-Foster City

For district leaders working to improve literacy in their schools, an important distinction is often overlooked: evidence of the current reality.

Literacy diagnosis isn’t just a pause before implementation or a snapshot of a single moment in time — it needs to be a key, repeatable habit in implementation work. If educators and leaders do not have a predictable mechanism for digging below trends to better understand the specific areas where students are struggling, it is hard to make strong decisions that sustain shared understanding, trust, and instructional clarity. 

San Mateo-Foster City School District leaders entered the 2025–26 school year navigating this diagnostic step in their literacy implementation. Leadership was questioning: How can we best support teachers in delivering evidence-based language and literacy instruction that deepens student thinking, honors identity, fosters joy, and increases literacy attainment?

The district had spent several years strengthening foundational literacy in the early grades. Leaders could see that work was taking root in K–2, but were still hearing concerns about upper elementary students who were not yet reading on grade level, about teachers needing clearer support for evidence-based literacy practices, and curriculum use that did not always help students read, write, and talk deeply about text.

David Chambliss, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, and Pam Bartfield, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, partnered with Leading Educators to better understand the current state of language and literacy instruction across grades 3–5. 

Through classroom learning walks, interviews with principals, focus groups with teachers and Teachers on Special Assignment, writing analysis, student surveys, and structured reflection with district leaders, the partnership helped the district move from broad questions to a sharper, shared understanding of instructional strengths, gaps, and next steps.

We talked with both leaders about the process, what they learned, and how other visionary leaders can make similar moves toward flourishing literacy. This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

What were you hoping to better understand?

David Chambliss: Our strategic plan’s focus had been on K–2, but we were still hearing questions about students in grades 3–5 who were struggling readers. We needed a clearer understanding of what was happening in those classrooms.

Working with Leading Educators (LE) gave us an opportunity to visit classrooms together, reflect together, and bring LE’s literacy expertise into our thinking. That felt especially important as we begin shaping our next strategic plan and the actions we want to focus on over the next five years.

Pam Bartfield: I wanted to understand whether the shifts we had made in K–2 were showing up in grades 3–5. Are students more capable than they were in prior years? Does instruction still look like balanced literacy, or have we made a shift? Are students getting what they need around morphology and decoding? And especially for multilingual learners, are students reading, writing, and talking based in text?

We also wanted to understand the quality of student engagement. How student-centered were classrooms? What agency did students have? And how could that connect to literacy development, not agency for agency’s sake, but agency that helps students master literacy skills?

What did the learning walks help you see more clearly?

David: We were surprised to see a fair amount of engaging practice happening in classrooms. There were better conditions for authentic engagement than I expected.

But we also noticed that engagement was not always grounded in text or explicit literacy practices. Students might have been excited, but the work did not always push them to think deeply about literacy content.

That left us with a big question: How do we keep pushing for innovative teaching and learning that puts students at the center while also grounding that work in strong literacy practice?

Pam: The observation tool we worked on together was powerful because it forced us to look for specific evidence. It asked us to say yes or no to whether something was present. That was hard at first because we know our teachers work so hard. But a “no” did not mean nothing good was happening. It meant that particular thing was not present yet.

That helped us focus. As a district, we cannot get overwhelmed by all the “nos.” We have to ask: What is one area where we can make movement? What is tied to this school, these teachers, and where they are right now?

At one school, for example, the principal, literacy team, and coach noticed that teachers were not using much academic vocabulary. That became a concrete place to start. We thought about how we could bring more intentional vocabulary work into staff learning and across content areas.

How did the diagnostic process challenge your assumptions?

David: The first assumption it challenged was around student engagement. I thought we would see very little authentic engagement, and that was not exactly true. We did see engagement, but we had to get clearer about what kind of engagement it was.

It also surfaced how much more we need to learn as a system. I kept realizing, “Oh, right. I should be paying attention to that,” or “I didn’t realize I wasn’t paying attention to that.” When we involved site leaders and TOSAs in the reflection work, that became even clearer. A formal diagnostic process focused on specific evidence can quickly elevate people’s understanding.

Pam: It reminded me that sustained systems change takes intentional work. In K–2, we made a big shift because the need was clear and people were ready. In grades 3–5, we are still getting clearer about the specific instructional shifts.

This process helped us see that change may need to start with smaller, more focused steps that build momentum.

What instructional shifts are becoming clearer? What is giving you hope?

David: One clear shift is wanting to see more activities thoroughly grounded in grade-level, high-quality text. We also saw promising work on writing, which helped us think about what might be important next.

I keep coming back to the need for an anchoring framework or tool that can guide several years of work. What are the four or five moves we want to see happen? What are the high-leverage shifts that can help teachers make better day-to-day and unit-to-unit decisions?

Pam: We saw schools begin to focus on specific areas. At one school, the principal and her team focused on vocabulary and began incorporating it into staff meeting professional learning. At another school, the learning walk process helped elevate the focus on writing, and we are looking to support an SRSD pilot there next year.

It was also helpful that we intentionally visited different types of schools. We saw similar things to work on across schools, even though the path may look different depending on the school context.

David: My big epiphany was about the power of engaging teacher leaders and administrative leaders in the process. You could see how quickly leaders could grow, get focused, and become clearer.

I also saw that many leaders are still not yet fully honest about what they are seeing in classrooms. I want us to get to the point where leaders feel confident saying, “I did not really see that, and that is a concern.” That level of honest dialogue is what will help us move quickly.

We are going to continue working with Leading Educators next year through a learning cycles process to keep doing diagnostic work while also supporting sites with systems for reflective cycles.

What San Mateo’s Experience Makes Visible

Through this partnership, San Mateo-Foster City leaders were able to name several important patterns:

• Student engagement was often stronger than expected, but not always anchored in deep work with text.
• Teachers and coaches were naming similar needs, including how to support upper elementary students who are not yet reading on grade level.
• Leaders needed a more precise, shared way to observe literacy instruction and talk honestly about what they saw.
• Schools could begin making progress by focusing on high-leverage entry points such as vocabulary, writing, text-centered discussion, and stronger scaffolds.

Assessment data can tell leaders where students are struggling. Curriculum materials can define what students should learn. But critical classroom evidence helps leaders observe and understand what students are actually being asked to do, where instruction is supporting deeper thinking, and where teachers need more coherent support.

San Mateo-Foster City’s diagnostic year points to a broader lesson for districts working to strengthen literacy instruction: a detailed, comprehensive view of a problem is vital to solving it. 

Take Action

Are you ready to make similar moves in your context?

Our simple Literacy Snapshot Quick Scan is designed to help leaders begin to surface student trends in their literacy instruction. If you’re interested in exploring a more intensive sprint, get in touch with our team today.