To defend this nation's chosen system of lay governance of public schools, it is necessary first to assume a direct relationship exists between what happens in the board room and what happens in the classroom. Evidence abounds that the assumption is valid. Unfortunately, much of that evidence is negative. For example, in far too many school districts, school boards are so internally conflicted, so focused on the minutiae of operational detail, so crossed up politically, that the top leadership of the district is seen more as a distraction than as a leader of change. In some cases, distraction may be understating the severity of the problem: In those instances, impediment may be a more accurate description. But there is hope. The three school districts profiled here represent a growing number of others that are effectively creating new roles and a new relationship for school boards and their superintendents, roles that for once are crystal clear in terms of the board's governance responsibility and the superintendent's responsibility for students' academic success and operational accountability. These school boards have recognized the need to change their focus from daily operations to long-term student achievement gains and have sought outside help to make that change happen. All have built success with strong, proactive relations with the communities they serve.