Teacher sacked for putting a student in a head lock despite being punched by the youth

[nero_bolt]

Teacher sacked for putting a student in a head lock despite being punched by the youth says staff are powerless 

 TEACHER who was sacked for misconduct including putting a student in a headlock after the youth punched him said the NSW education system left teachers "powerless to discipline kids".

Science and agriculture teacher Stephen Krix was fired from Riverstone High School when he fought back against a year-10 student who refused to work and punched him in the face during a class.

Mr Krix - a "squarely built" 51-year-old who had worked in various public and private teaching roles since 1989 - told The Sunday Telegraph he acted in self-defence when he put the "slight" student in a headlock during a science class in May 2011.

The incident came after the student refused to take off his headphones, told Mr Krix to f*** off several times and punched the teacher when he stood close to him with a worksheet and refused to move

.

The incident was outlined in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission last Wednesday where Mr Krix lost an appeal against the sacking he claimed was "harsh, unreasonable and unjust".

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Krix, who now works in the security industry, said the public system was failing kids because teachers feared being sacked if they disciplined students.

He said students were leaving public schools without the self-restraint required to cope with post-school life.

It's a joke - that's why people are running to private schools," Mr Krix said.

"Eighty per cent of kids are screwed over by the state system because of a lack of discipline given to a minority of bad kids who disrupt classes," he said.

"You have to have zero tolerance … if a kid is behaving badly in the classroom he needs to be extracted and all the kids that are behaving themselves need to be able to get educated."

In relation to the student, Mr Krix said: "It's not like he's some sort of pathological killer … he's just a kid who needed discipline and wasn't getting it. If he's given the guidelines then he knows where the boundary is".

A NSW Department of Education and Communities representative told the commission Mr Krix should have stood down from any physical confrontation.

The representative said the Teaching Service Act meant that teachers had to respond to situations with the safety of students being the top priority.

more here http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/teacher-sacked-for-putting-a-student-in-a-head-lock-despit...

A very true comment from a poster on that page....

The day will come when no one will want to become a high school teacher...it has been getting worse for years now.

Education will be  via the internet for a teacher's safety .T

he students hold the power .  

Has anyone got the guts to swing this around...I doubt it.

Then again, anyone who wants to become a secondary teacher in the public system ,I guess, deserves all that is coming their way if they haven't heeded the warning signals by now to AVOID this once great profession! 

[icyfroth]

---

@aftanas wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@aftanas wrote:
Mr Krix could have have chosen to retreat which would have been consistent with Departmental policy and with the written direction given to him.  However, he chose to engage with the student and as a result breached school policy and the written direction.

---

Retreat and then what? Wait til the kid comes after you?

Stand by and let the boy unleash his rage on the furniture?

Run out of the classroom and lose the respect of all his students?

I understand what you're saying about complying with written directions, but written directions are not always helpful in a physical confrontation.

The teacher immobilised the student and stopped him from doing further harm and the school should have taken this into consideration.

Sacking a teacher for controlling a pupil simply sends a message to students that they can behave anyway they like in the classroom and if the teacher tries to stop them they can get him/her sacked.

What a lark!

---

Exactly, he should have retreated.  More to the point, he should not have put himself is a position that allowed the student to punch him.  If the teacher was jumped from behind I think it would have been understandable.  However, the sequence of events was that the student was unruly, Mr Krix made or may not have played with the student's hat, Mr Krix made fun of him on the blackboard, Mr Krix got in his face, refused to move away when he was pushed in the chest and grappled with the student after he was punched.  That showed bad decision making on the part of Mr Krix. 

I think the thing that is being missed here is that the student's behaviour is not relevant to the question of whether Mr Krix acted appropriately.  Obviously the kid was grossly misbehaving and crying out for some tough love.  But Mr Krix did what he was told by his employer not to do.  He failed to follow a written direction.  You may argue that the direction was wrong.  That Mr Krix should have been directed to dispense justice as he saw fit.  But he is an employee and he did what he was told not to do.  He got fired and his sacking was justified in the circumstances that he breached the written direction on at least two occasions.  Plus three of his students caught on fire.

---

"Obviously the kid was grossly misbehaving and crying out for some tough love."

So Mr. Krix should've given him a cuddle and spoken to him in a soothing manner after he got punched in the face. awww.

"Plus three of his students caught on fire."

Another incident saw a year seven student receive "serious burns" and two others were set on fire in a science experiment led by Krix where students started kicking flammable liquid at each other.

The experiment involved Mr Krix lighting petrol in a "science pneumatic trough" in an outdoor area.

But the teacher left the students alone at scene of the experiment when he saw another student trying to "take a can of fuel" from the back of his ute.

While he was away, other students "were kicking at the pots of flaming liquid … until one boy kicked the pot over" and the flaming liquid spilt on three boys, the commission heard.

Link To Article

Makes you wonder why anyone would want to enter the teaching profession.

[cherry*135]

imo this teacher should have recognised himself that he should have changed career earlier...before he reached his breaking point.

[cherry*135]

Krix v Director-General, Department of Education and Communities [2014] NSWIRComm 1000

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=169247

30 Those parts of Allegation 1 which were held to be sustained and to form misconduct were that on 2 May 2011, Mr Krix engaged in inappropriate conduct towards a year 10 student, namely Jarrad O'Hanlon, in that he:

(a) Said to Jarrad words to the effect of 'You're special are you?', 'are you that stupid that you cant write anything down', and 'why don't you do something in your life?'

(b) wrote on the class whiteboard words to the effect of 'Jarrad the taker' while making thrusting movements with his body;

(c) took Jarrad's hat and played a game of 'piggy in the middle'; with it;

(d) stood in close proximity to Jarrad's face and refused to move after he told you to '**bleep** off' several times;

(e) said to Jarrad words to the effect of 'is that all you've got? No effect' after Jarrad pushed him away;

(f) grabbed Jarrad around the neck in a 'headlock' and dragged him over his desk, causing the desk to tip over;

(g) while holding Jarrad in a headlock, punched him twice to the front of the head;

(h) continued to wrestle with Jarrad round the classroom;

(i) after students intervened and stood between him and Jarrad , attempted to break through the students to get to Jarrad ;

(j) said to Jarrad words to the effect of 'lucky your boyfriends are holding you back or I would have belted you.'

31Those parts of Allegation 2 which were held to be sustained and to form misconduct were that Mr Krix:

(g) on 9 June 2011 pulled the chair out from under a Year 8 student, Jordan Kharka, causing him to fall to the ground; and

(h) on 9 June 2011 grabbed Jordan Kharka by the jumper and called him a 'sooky baby'; and

(l) on 16 June 2011 wrapped his arms around three year 7 students, Todd Murray, Dallas Minchin and Joel Ayliffe and twisted his body around, causing the students to fall over, and then said words to the effect of 'bloody idiots'.

32 Allegation 3 was in relation to an incident in which a student suffered serious burns in the course of the conduct of a science experiment on 21 July 2011. The particulars of the allegation that were upheld and were found to constitute misconduct were that Mr Krix:

(a) failed to advise his Head Teacher that he was planning on conducting an experiment involving the lighting of flammable liquids;

(b) took flammable liquids into the school himself, instead of obtaining the appropriate permission through the school to purchase the flammable liquids;

(c) failed to complete a risk assessment for the experiment in line with the Department's policy 'Chemical Safety in Schools'

(d) failed to conduct the experiment in line with the Department's policy 'Chemical Safety in Schools'

(f) failed to adequately supervise the students watching the experiment, in that he walked to his vehicle while flammable liquid was still burning.

(g) failed to appropriately secure the flammable liquids which were located in the back of his vehicle, leading to one student trying to take the flammable liquids out of his vehicle

(h) in relation to the conduct above, that he failed in his duty of care towards students which resulted in

(i) a year 9 student, John Harris, receiving serious burns; and

(ii) two other male year 9 students, Christian Topoki-Russell and Brodie Higgins, catching alight.

33 Allegation 4 was that Mr Krix breached a lawful direction given to him in writing on 9 May 2011 not to come into unnecessary physical contact with students, and not to make inappropriate comments to students. It was said that his conduct set out in particulars of allegation 2 (g), 2(h) and 2(l), that is, the Kharka incidents and the incident involving the three year 7 students, constituted breaches of that direction.

34 There were some other allegations found to be proven but not found to be misconduct. It was not necessary to determine those matters and I have not found them to be made out.

[cherry*135]

37  In this same context I observe that Mr Krix was a probationary teacher when his appointment was annulled, his probation having been extended. It was suggested that the extension of his probation was not within power, rendering him not a probationary teacher. I do not accept that the Department was without power to extend Mr Krix's probationary period or that the probationary period was extended unlawfully.

98.............[science experiment] He already knew by July that he was at a school where unruliness was to be expected; he had had the experience, for example, of two earlier incidents with Jarrad O'Hanlon.

This was his first year at a public high school?

[azureline**]

Looks like Mr Krix really had no self discipline. How could he teach children to have it?

[aftanas]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Krix v Director-General, Department of Education and Communities [2014] NSWIRComm 1000

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=169247

30 Those parts of Allegation 1 which were held to be sustained and to form misconduct were that on 2 May 2011, Mr Krix engaged in inappropriate conduct towards a year 10 student, namely Jarrad O'Hanlon, in that he:

(a) Said to Jarrad words to the effect of 'You're special are you?', 'are you that stupid that you cant write anything down', and 'why don't you do something in your life?'

(b) wrote on the class whiteboard words to the effect of 'Jarrad the taker' while making thrusting movements with his body;

(c) took Jarrad's hat and played a game of 'piggy in the middle'; with it;

(d) stood in close proximity to Jarrad's face and refused to move after he told you to '**bleep** off' several times;

(e) said to Jarrad words to the effect of 'is that all you've got? No effect' after Jarrad pushed him away;

(f) grabbed Jarrad around the neck in a 'headlock' and dragged him over his desk, causing the desk to tip over;

(g) while holding Jarrad in a headlock, punched him twice to the front of the head;

(h) continued to wrestle with Jarrad round the classroom;

(i) after students intervened and stood between him and Jarrad , attempted to break through the students to get to Jarrad ;

(j) said to Jarrad words to the effect of 'lucky your boyfriends are holding you back or I would have belted you.'

31Those parts of Allegation 2 which were held to be sustained and to form misconduct were that Mr Krix:

(g) on 9 June 2011 pulled the chair out from under a Year 8 student, Jordan Kharka, causing him to fall to the ground; and

(h) on 9 June 2011 grabbed Jordan Kharka by the jumper and called him a 'sooky baby'; and

(l) on 16 June 2011 wrapped his arms around three year 7 students, Todd Murray, Dallas Minchin and Joel Ayliffe and twisted his body around, causing the students to fall over, and then said words to the effect of 'bloody idiots'.

32 Allegation 3 was in relation to an incident in which a student suffered serious burns in the course of the conduct of a science experiment on 21 July 2011. The particulars of the allegation that were upheld and were found to constitute misconduct were that Mr Krix:

(a) failed to advise his Head Teacher that he was planning on conducting an experiment involving the lighting of flammable liquids;

(b) took flammable liquids into the school himself, instead of obtaining the appropriate permission through the school to purchase the flammable liquids;

(c) failed to complete a risk assessment for the experiment in line with the Department's policy 'Chemical Safety in Schools'

(d) failed to conduct the experiment in line with the Department's policy 'Chemical Safety in Schools'

(f) failed to adequately supervise the students watching the experiment, in that he walked to his vehicle while flammable liquid was still burning.

(g) failed to appropriately secure the flammable liquids which were located in the back of his vehicle, leading to one student trying to take the flammable liquids out of his vehicle

(h) in relation to the conduct above, that he failed in his duty of care towards students which resulted in

(i) a year 9 student, John Harris, receiving serious burns; and

(ii) two other male year 9 students, Christian Topoki-Russell and Brodie Higgins, catching alight.

33 Allegation 4 was that Mr Krix breached a lawful direction given to him in writing on 9 May 2011 not to come into unnecessary physical contact with students, and not to make inappropriate comments to students. It was said that his conduct set out in particulars of allegation 2 (g), 2(h) and 2(l), that is, the Kharka incidents and the incident involving the three year 7 students, constituted breaches of that direction.

34 There were some other allegations found to be proven but not found to be misconduct. It was not necessary to determine those matters and I have not found them to be made out.

---

If you read from para 53 onwards, which deals with the evidence and the facts found on the evidence, I think you will find that not all of these allegations were found to be true.  That is, whether or not all these allegations were founded in fact, the evidence was not sufficient to prove the allegations.  I think what Commissioner Newell is stating here is that not all the allegations were relevant to a finding of misconduct, but the allegations stated above constitute misconduct, if found to be true.

For example, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not support a finding of fact that Mr Krix punched the student, that the other students pulled Mr Krix off of the student and that Mr Krix tried to break free of the students and say 'lucky your boyfriends are holding you back or I would have belted you.'

If we are going to have this debate, I think we should do it in a manner respectful to all parties and based on truth rather than slander.  Mr Krix had many good qualities as a teacher.  And thirty five years ago, when I was in grade 10, his actions, while not condoned, would not have lead to the ultimate sanction.  However, times change.  In the 70s teachers were allowed to grab students and frogmarch them to the office for a dose of tough love (that is, the cane).  But in the 21st century teachers are not allowed to manhandle students.  Mr Krix did not comply with the terms of his employment and that is why he was fired.

I submit that this case illustrates a wider problem: how can disciple be maintained is circumstances where students refuse to follow the directions of their teachers.  Why is it that some students to not accord teachers the respect that is due to them by their position.

My experience is that children model the behaviour of adults.  Sometimes children make bad choices as in modeling their behaviour after bad boy pop stars.  However, usually they model their parents' behaviour.  In the 70's teachers were respected and, in a conflict between a teacher and a student, the parent would usually take the side of the teacher and reinforce the teacher's position.  However, teachers are no longer respected generally, and I understand many parents fail to support teachers such that, in the eyes of their children, their teachers are not presented as authority figures who should be obeyed.

Children are not bad: they are the products of their environments.  If they are not taught by their parents to respect teachers they wont. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the "tough on crime" approach works.  I think children need to be taught, and I think that teaching them that violence is an appropriate method of controlling behaviour is the wrong lesson.

In the theory of punishment here are two schools: the utilitarian model and the retributive model.  The retributive model seeks to mete out punishment as retribution or vengeance for the infraction, on the basis that a person who does bad things deserves to be punished.  The utilitarian model seeks to punish with a view to deterring future wrong doing.   Both methods are effective in protecting society from the actions of miscreants, but the retributive model does not serve the end of rehabilitating the offender. 

Schools should be about children.  We obviously need to do a better job of controlling student behaviour, but as someone who was caned vigorously at school, I can attest that corporal punishment did not teach me respect for teachers.  I was more fearful of detention than the cane.  And too many teachers caned me out of anger rather than compassion.  

I submit that what we should be thinking about here is whether we wish to punish students as retribution for their transgressions, or whether we should punish with a view to rehabilitating their bad behaviour.

[cherry*135]

If you read from para 53 onwards, which deals with the evidence and the facts found on the evidence, I think you will find that not all of these allegations were found to be true.

This teacher was on probation. The school was known for having 'difficult' students. The head-lock incident was only one of the issues.

Ok, bearing what you posted in mind, I have adjusted the list. 

Allegation 1

 (b) wrote on the class whiteboard words to the effect of 'Jarrad the taker' while making thrusting movements with his body;

 (d) stood in close proximity to Jarrad's face and refused to move after he told you to '**bleep** off' several times;

 (f) grabbed Jarrad around the neck in a 'headlock' and dragged him over his desk, causing the desk to tip over;

 (h) continued to wrestle with Jarrad round the classroom;

74 I do however make findings of fact that Mr Krix carried out the conduct in particulars (b), (d), (f) and (h) of Allegation 1.

75 It must be abundantly clear that those particulars, made out at the appropriate level as I have found them to be, constitute misconduct.

77 Lastly, I am obliged to point out that my inability to accept Mr Krix's account of the factual matters encompassed in this allegation has led me to an overall view that his account of matters of fact generally cannot necessarily be accepted.

Allegation 2

 (l) on 16 June 2011 wrapped his arms around three year 7 students, Todd Murray, Dallas Minchin and Joel Ayliffe and twisted his body around, causing the students to fall over, and then said words to the effect of 'bloody idiots'.

92 I find Allegation 2(l) made out. It was of itself misconduct and it occurred after the lawful direction Mr Krix had been given on 9 May not to have unnecessary physical contact with students, the breach of which was further misconduct.

Allegation 3

a) failed to advise his Head Teacher that he was planning on conducting an experiment involving the lighting of flammable liquids;

(b) took flammable liquids into the school himself, instead of obtaining the appropriate permission through the school to purchase the flammable liquids;

(c) failed to complete a risk assessment for the experiment in line with the Department's policy 'Chemical Safety in Schools'

(d) failed to conduct the experiment in line with the Department's policy 'Chemical Safety in Schools'

(f) failed to adequately supervise the students watching the experiment, in that he walked to his vehicle while flammable liquid was still burning.

(g) failed to appropriately secure the flammable liquids which were located in the back of his vehicle, leading to one student trying to take the flammable liquids out of his vehicle

(h) in relation to the conduct above, that he failed in his duty of care towards students which resulted in

(i) a year 9 student, John Harris, receiving serious burns; and

(ii) two other male year 9 students, Christian Topoki-Russell and Brodie Higgins, catching alight.

107 I find Allegations 3 (a) (b) (c) (d) (f) (g) and (h) made out at the required level of proof. I find that they constituted misconduct.

Allegation 4

..was that Mr Krix breached a lawful direction given to him in writing on 9 May 2011 not to come into unnecessary physical contact with students1 , and not to make inappropriate comments to students. It was said that his conduct set out in particulars of allegation 2 (g), 2(h) and 2(l), that is, the Kharka incidents and the incident involving the three year 7 students, constituted breaches of that direction.

110 Allegation 4 is, save for subparticular (e), the effect of which exclusion does not reduce the weight of the allegation, made out. Mr Krix breached a lawful direction. This constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Teaching Service Act and, so far as it is relevant, constituted misconduct in the common law sense.

[ronronny1970]

Sounds like we will never encourage men to become teachers when they are scrutinised like Mr Krix. That glass house must be windy.

[cherry*135]

Who is scrutinising him? The law? We don't require teachers to follow the law?

What sort of schools (private) did this teacher teach at prior to this school?

[cherry*135]

68   On all of the evidence I do not accept that Mr Krix had O'Hanlon in an 'armlock' or that he, a man of stocky build and significant experience in handling, for example, cattle including dangerous bulls, was wrestled across the classroom by a relatively slight boy.