214 CRITICAL THEORY AND LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
that the preservice principals perceive that they and their principals hold similar values on the
importance of valuing diversity, assessing the culture, and institutionalizing cultural
knowledge and resources. The differences denote the diverse perspectives between the
preservice principals’ perceptions of and observations of culturally proficient leadership
practices.
Evidence to this effect is seen in the higher mean scores for the perceptions of culturally
proficient leadership than observed practices of culturally proficient leadership. As
mentioned, another salient indicator is the differences in preservice principals’ perceived and
observed aspects of culturally proficient leadership. For example, the preservice principals
equated valuing diversity with creating a climate that has high academic expectations for all
students; providing instruction that addresses the background of diverse students; ensuring
that school policies are sensitive are sensitive to the cultural makeup of the school; and
making decisions that are inclusive of diverse perspectives. Based on their perceptions,
principals’ interpretation of the value of diversity are using language in documents and
statements that acknowledge cultural diversity of students; creating a climate that has high
academic expectations for all students; and providing instruction that addresses the
background of diverse students. This example shows that creating a climate that has high
academic expectations for all students is the only common highly emphasized practice
between the preservice principals’ perceptions of and observations of valuing diversity. In
addition, this study revealed a higher mean score for the preservice principals’ perceptions
than their observations of this practice. Overall, preservice principals perceived an informal
emphasis on valuing diversity. However, they observed their principals demonstrating formal
practices of this same element.
Such differences are indicative of several influences. First, the outcomes of this research
are based on the perceptions of preservice principals. The second factor is that the preservice
principals are still teachers. They are responsible for an average class of 30 students. They
have never led a school with 300 students and teachers. As such, they may have a myopic
view of school leadership. In other words, they may not understand a leadership-driven
perspective of culturally proficient school leadership.
They may lack the administrative disposition for understanding the significance of using
warranted instead of desired leadership practices of cultural proficiency. Consequently, they
presumably have a partial understanding of the differences between their perceptions of and
observations of culturally proficient leadership. Finally, the participants may not realize how
some school issues require a demonstration of more practices of some elements than of other
elements of culturally proficient leadership.
IMPLICATIONS
This study bears two important implications. First, the participants of this study should
talk to their principals about their perceptions and observations of culturally proficient
leadership. This implication is attributed to the differences between mean scores and ranking
of the most important and frequently used culturally proficient leadership practices. (see
Appendix A). Preservice principals should ask their principals about the rationale for using
more culturally proficient leadership practices than other culturally proficient leadership
practices
For example, the study findings showed that the principals were perceived as not placing
high emphasis on inclusiveness or adapting to diversity. Therefore, the preservice principals
could ask their principals to explain the rationale of a lack of emphasis on these elements of