Preservice Principals’ Perceptions of Culturally Proficient School Leadership 213
from institutionalizing cultural knowledge and resources were exposing faculty to staff
development on addressing diverse student populations; and making provisions for teachers to
receive training on making curriculum modifications in accordance to the cultural and
linguistic makeup of students. The practice from managing the dynamics of differences was
designating funding and human resources to address issues that relate to cultural diversity (See
Appendix A).
DISCUSSION
This research produced several worthy points of discussion. Consistent with Smith’s
(2004) findings, the participants of this study responded that elements of valuing diversity and
inclusiveness are important culturally proficient leadership practices. They also observed their
principals incorporating valuing diversity, inclusiveness, and managing the dynamics of
difference in their culturally proficient leadership. However, unlike the participants in Smith’s
(2004) study, participants in this study placed strong emphasis on the importance of adapting
to diversity and institutionalizing cultural knowledge and resources. In addition, they
observed their principals demonstrating culturally proficient leadership through the
institutionalization of cultural knowledge and resources. This finding does not suggest that
Smith’s participants neglect the need for institutionalizing cultural knowledge and resources,
adapting to diversity, or institutionalizing cultural knowledge and resources. Instead, this
finding suggests that there are some different perspectives on the importance of and
observations of certain elements of culturally proficient school leadership.
This difference could be attributed to two factors. First, the participants in Smith’s (2004)
study were practicing principals. Participants of this study were aspiring principals.
Consequently, their perceptions of culturally proficient leadership are shaped by different
positions in the school. As such, differences will exist between this study’s participants’
observations of and Smith’s research participants’ demonstration of culturally proficient
leadership practices.
The second possible explanation for this difference is region. The Smith study was
conducted in California public schools. This study was based on aspiring principals of Texas
public schools. Given the differences in two states’ school populations, the two groups would
have different perceptions of the importance of culturally proficient school leadership. In
addition, the preservice principals’ observations of culturally proficient school leadership in
Texas would differ from the culturally proficient leadership behaviors of the principals in
California.
The second significant finding is the similarities and differences between the participants’
perceptions of and observations of culturally proficient leadership. The preservice principals
placed high emphasis on culturally proficient school leadership practices from elements of
valuing diversity, adapting to diversity, assessing the culture, institutionalizing cultural
knowledge and resources, and inclusiveness. Likewise, they observed their principals
practicing elements of valuing diversity, assessing the culture, and institutionalizing cultural
knowledge and resources.
However, the preservice principals did not observe their principals consistently engaging
in practices of adapting to diversity or inclusiveness. Along those same lines, they did not
place strong emphasis on managing the dynamics of differences. Additionally, different
emphases existed between preservice principals’ perceptions of and observations of valuing
diversity, assessing the culture, and institutionalizing cultural knowledge and resources. The
significance of these similarities and differences are twofold. First, the similarities suggest