It was a major victory for the San Francisco Unified School District in light of misspending and mismanagement by previous administrations of proceeds from four past four voter-approved school bond and tax measures.

Of $337 million approved at the ballot box since 1988, as much as $100 million was misspent. Some projects never materialized, and some district employees were charged with stealing money.

But on Tuesday, voters seemed convinced that Superintendent Arlene Ackerman had reformed the district enough to trust it with the largest school facilities bond ever approved in San Francisco.

Ackerman said Tuesday night that when she took her job three years ago, she couldn't walk down the street without people telling her about promised school facilities projects that hadn't been completed.

"I promise to this community that as long as I am superintendent, we'll do what we say we're going to do with this money," she said. "This is a victory, a real victory for the children in this school system -- they deserve everything we can give them."

Soon after taking the helm in 2000, Ackerman called in the state's Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team to perform an audit of the district, as well as local and federal law enforcement officials to investigate corruption.

She placed the facilities department -- which formerly operated on its own with little oversight -- under the supervision of the district's chief business officer, who also oversees the budgeting, accounting and contracting divisions.

She also created a contracts compliance office and hired a new budget director and risk manager.

In addition, as required by Prop. 39, the bond money will be supervised by a citizen oversight committee. That proposition -- approved by California voters in 2000 -- lowered the majority threshold required for facilities bonds to pass from two-thirds of voters to 55 percent, but it strengthened oversight of how the money is spent.

All the reform measures apparently were enough to sway San Francisco voters -- a group that has historically supported public schools -- to authorize the bonds, which will add an estimated $20 in property taxes per year for every $100,000 of valuation through 2032.

School board member Dan Kelly said he considered the passage of the measure a vote of confidence for Ackerman, who has come under fire from some school board members for what they say is an autocratic leadership style.

"It's a tribute to Arlene after all the scandals," he said. "This is a real statement of faith, and she deserves credit."

Mark Sanchez, a school board member who has been a vocal critic of Ackerman, said he thought the vote signified support for the school board itself.

"It shows the public likes what the board did" to reform the district, he said.

The $295 million bond issue is supposed to help replace bungalows at Lincoln High School, renovate Thurgood Marshall High, complete an unfinished wing at John O'Connell High, improve accessibility for disabled students around the district, remove asbestos and lead-based paint from many schools and plant outdoor greenery.

Some $15 million is to be set aside to move the School of the Arts from its current spot on Portola Drive to Van Ness Avenue in the heart of the city's performing arts district. The move has been planned for nearly 20 years,

but money for it has never come through.

"A lot of departments just need more space and things that aren't so run- down," said Ariel Krietzman, 16, a sophomore at SOTA. "It would be a better environment. Oh -- it would be great."

It has been six years since the last bond measure for San Francisco schools. But the district won't wait nearly as long next time around. The money approved Tuesday night is just the first of four planned measures seeking a total of $1.7 billion for city schools over the next 12 years.

Novella Smith, who managed the campaign to pass the bond, said she was pleased that the measure passed so easily.

"I'm delighted by the whole town saying, 'Yes, kids do count,''' she said.

E-mail Heather Knight at hknight@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 20 of the San Francisco Chronicle