The last three decades of board research has embarked on various aspects of school boards (Alsbury, 2008b; Delagardelle, 2008; Resnick & Bryant, 2010; Strauss, 2018) including characteristics of effective boards (Alsbury & Gore, 2015; Dervarics & O'Brien, 2016), importance of targeted school board trainings (Cook, 2014; Gann, 2015; Hess & Meeks, 2010; Plough, 2014; Pollard, 2012; Reimer, 2015; Weiss, Templeton, Thompson, & Tremont, 2014; Wilkins, 2015), boards and student achievement (Blasko, 2016; Brenner, Sullivan, & Dalton, 2002; Ikejiaku, 2000; Lorentzen, 2013; Peterson, 2000; Saatcioglu & Sargut, 2014; Shelton, 2010), board behaviors (Bradley, 2013; Choi, 2013; Gates, 2013; Gomez, 2013; Murray, 2013; Nava, 2013; Richter, 2013; Turley, 2013), and board professional development and grades (Gates, 2013; Lee & Eadens, 2014; Roberts & Sampson, 2011; Turley, 2013). Eadens, Schwanenberger, Clement, and Eadens (2015) found a positive relationship between participation in Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA) trainings and state rankings of school district performance/grades. The current study furthers that previous research three years later. Results indicated a statistically significant relationship between district (n=203) performance scores/grades and number of trainings governance team members attended during the 2017-18 school year. Essentially, higher attendance at ASBA trainings again was correlated with higher grades (Performance Ranked [4.0 to 0.0 / A to F]). Once again, the districts that had lower training attendance tended to have statistically significantly lower grades, r[superscript s] = 0.168, p = 0.017. Given this repeated relationship between training participation rates and performance scores/grade rankings, it is evident that Arizona districts' which desire to improve student academic achievement should commit to ensuring regular participation in trainings. While some districts may argue against devoting the financial resources to pay for conference registration fees, lodging, and travel, in even the smallest of districts, this expense would represent a fraction of a percent of the district's operating budget. Given the payoff of higher student achievement potential, it appears that the benefits would far outweigh the minimal cost in time and funding. Recommendations included school boards schedule annual planning meetings, calendar of trainings available, engage members in committing to meaningful participation in school board trainings, establishing a practice of assigning a mentor to each new board member to accompany to their first training events. Future research recommendations included developing a deeper understanding of the differences in board training and actions in districts that are making achievement gains versus those that are not. Such research could provide rich insights into the complex and vast dynamics of the superintendent-board governance relationship and the outcomes of participation in trainings.