SAN FRANCISCO HAS a troubled history with school superintendents. With the exception of Ray Cortines, who was both a brilliant educator and a skilled administrator, almost everyone who's held the job in the last 25 years has had some serious problems. Bob Alioto was a tyrant. Bill Rojas just oozed sleaze. And those of us who have watched the process of selecting a new school superintendent know that there's hardly a giant pool of perfect applicants just waiting in line to take over the top job in San Francisco.

So we've been cautious about siding with the increasingly vocal group of parents, teachers, and school board members who would just as soon see Supt. Arlene Ackerman move on. She's taken some very important steps toward restoring the credibility of the local schools; and delving into the risky, time-intensive, and expensive task of finding a new school chief isn't something to be taken lightly.

But Ackerman is making it hard for anyone to keep supporting her these days. As we reported last week, she's refusing to meet with the teachers union and with several key board members. She doesn't even show up for all the board meetings anymore. She's refusing to give the board direction or her recommendations on school-closure issues.

And while she's ignoring or defying key stakeholders, she's cozying up to downtown and casting her political lot with a crew that essentially wants to end desegregation in the schools.

She's acting as if she has her feet halfway out the door already. And it's unfair for the district – for the parents, the teachers, and the students – to be dealing with a superintendent who won't demonstrate a long-term commitment to the job.

• • •

Ackerman has never been much of a conciliator. She's never been able to accept constructive criticism, or to enter into any sort of useful dialogue with people who disagree with her.

But her recent attack on the Student Advisory Council – and the bizarre 30-page press packet she issued to try to demonstrate a conspiracy between the students, the Sunshine Task Force, and the Bay Guardian – is a sign that things are going downhill, fast.

In this case, Ackerman wasn't just snubbing or fighting with adults – she was taking on students. She tried to block a Student Advisory Council meeting, then tried to intimidate its members, and later alleged, in her press packet, that San Francisco high school students aren't smart or educated enough to write their own political resolutions.

That's insulting – and exactly the wrong approach for a superintendent to take. As one parent, Tami Bryant, notes in a letter to the Bay Guardian this week, "Rather than the SFUSD shamefully wasting precious energy and resources on bullying these bright and articulate student leaders, they should be applauding themselves and their staff for cultivating and nurturing these creative and energetic future leaders."

Ackerman has taken the same approach with the student press. In 2003 she went after the Lowell, the high school paper at Lowell High School, for raising questions about her gag order.

We're used to seeing Ackerman's $400,000-a-year public relations office trying to manipulate and spin the news media. But even her supporters on the board should be disturbed when the superintendent starts using the same tactics with students.

If Ackerman wants to stick around, she needs to say so – and agree to make some real changes in the way she does business. Before the next school year starts, the board should demand that Ackerman give a binding commitment – is she going to quit or not? – and amend her contract to eliminate the provision that lets her leave, for any reason, at any time, and still pick up a $375,000 severance check.

And the board should tell her that if she wants to stay, she needs to make some immediate changes. The first step: Eliminate the gag order. (Ackerman disputes our terminology and says district staff are free to talk with the press – once they let her know – so she should have no problem with a board policy stating that any SFUSD staffer is free to speak with the press or public at any time without prior approval from central headquarters.) The next step: Cut back on the PR budget. Then start showing up at meetings and start talking to people who disagree with you. And support students who dissent instead of attacking them.

This is San Francisco, and heated debate is part of the political culture. If Ackerman can't stand that, she's going to have serious problems continuing to function at the top of the SFUSD.