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! 

[cherry*135]

Well it has managed to disrupt the thread with our recent posts. Again, a simple 'who do you mean' or 'what are you talking' about would have cleared it up..no need to add a snide comment (Goes to show how informed you are... which suggests a poster who has posted continuously in this thread doesn't know which one is the teacher and which one is the student)

General observation - when some don't agree with others views they start with the personal comments.

Genuine question: Has any teacher ever been reinstated after being dismissed and losing their appeal?

[icyfroth]

---

@aftanas wrote:

---

---

I guess my point is that Mr Krix was made out to be an irresponsible teacher, when in fact he was not.

I think it's deplorable that a teacher of his knowledge and experience has been removed from the education system.

---

Commissioner Newell stated:

99To turn his back on flaming petrol while students - and year 9 boys at that - stood around them was grossly negligent in a teacher. That there was unsecured fuel in his utility on school grounds was also inappropriate, but the central error was to leave the obviously dangerous experiment unattended, even for a minute.

Are you disputing the fact that Mr Krix left young children around a flaming vat of petrol unsupervised, or is it your argument that Mr Krix should not be held responsible for their welfare.

Mr Krix, indeed, took responsibility for the student (who had been left unattended by his own teacher) by "treating the student's affected leg with cold water immediately".

"In fact, Mr Krix was praised for saving  the student".

---

[cherry*135]

What were the circumstances that led to students being injured?.. that is the question.. not what happened afterwards.

The seriousness of the burns suffered was simply evidence of how dangerous and negligent Mr Krix's conduct was. In a classroom teacher it was, I am obliged to say, inexcusable

Commissioner Newall

[azureline**]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

The teacher did deserve to be sacked.

Why would he feel remorse?

The teacher has a history of belittling students and man handling them.

He wasn't sacked for putting the boy in a headlock. 

When he is a parent he will possibly see it differently.

---

When he is a parent?
 He has sons of his own!

Goes to show how informed you are...

---

In reply to the post about the student feeling no remorse.

I don't appreciate derogatory remarks directed at me.

---

You meant when Jarrad is a parent he might see things differently?

In that case, I misread your post and apologise.

---

Yes.... and thank you Icy.

Sorry you and Nevyn misunderstood.

I think those posts have been edited???? I don't recall anything I said that required it???

[icyfroth]

 lurker17260 wrote:

I'm not keen to get in on the whole subject, but can someone explain how the teacher of 30 whatever years experience is a probationary teacher?

I'm not making an argument, just wondering.

---

 aftanas wrote:

I understand he was previously employed at private schools. As a new employee of the NSW Education Dept he would be on probation for a period before being employed permanently. It is no reflection on his experience as a teacher.

---

chuk_77 wrote:

prior misconduct I think

---

You think....

[nevynreally]

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

Yes.... and thank you Icy.

Sorry you and Nevyn misunderstood.

I think those posts have been edited???? I don't recall anything I said that required it???

---

No, they weren't. Just sometimes what we think is clear isn't. It's really not a big deal, because we DISCUSSED it.

[cherry*135]

nevyn - what are your views on this teacher/student saga?

[icyfroth]

---

@am*3 wrote:

What were the circumstances that led to students being injured?.. that is the question.. not what happened afterwards.

The seriousness of the burns suffered was simply evidence of how dangerous and negligent Mr Krix's conduct was. In a classroom teacher it was, I am obliged to say, inexcusable

Commissioner Newall

---

If Mr Krix's experiment was deemed to be dangerous, how was it approved (and attended) by the school's Principal and another class?

And where was their accountability after the event?

[azureline**]

---

@nevynreally wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

Yes.... and thank you Icy.

Sorry you and Nevyn misunderstood.

I think those posts have been edited???? I don't recall anything I said that required it???

---

No, they weren't. Just sometimes what we think is clear isn't. It's really not a big deal, because we DISCUSSED it.

---

Yes, my post was edited. #173. The post I wrote had more in it, the removal of it may have altered your understanding of my post.

Not a big deal for me at all. Just an explanation.

[aftanas]

---

Commissioner Newell characterised Mr Krix as being grossly negligent.  Negligence occurs when someone has a duty of care and fails to exercise that duty. 

As a teacher in charge of students Mr Krix has a responsibility for the safety of his students.  In circumstances where there is a potential for for injury or harm to his students Mr Krix has a positive responsibility to take all reasonable steps to minimise harm to his students.

One issue with negligence is foreseeability.  A person cannot be held responsible for accidents that are not foreseeable.  However, Commissioner Newell considered that, in the circumstance of children standing around a vat of flaming person, there was a foreseeable risk that a students or students, if unsupervised, may interfere with flaming vat such that one or more of the students may be injured.

That did, in fact, happen when Mr Krix left the students unsupervised.  As Mr Krix was not an unconnected bystander, and as Mr Krix was the one who set up the flaming vat of fire, Mr Krix was responsible for the children's welfare and his carelessness resulted in three of the students catching on fire and one of them being badly burned.  That is, it was his fault the children caught on fire.

The responsibility of Mr Krix does not commence upon the occasion of an injury to his students.  He is responsible to take steps to prevent injury in the first place.