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! 

[nevynreally]

---

@am*3 wrote:

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

---

I think the teacher tried to be a friend to his students and some of them attacked like hyena's. But what do I know?

[aftanas]

According to Commissioner Newell,

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

If Mr Kriix'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?

---

According to Commissioner Newell the experiment wasn't approved by the Head Teacher.  Regardless, Mr Krix was in charge of the experiment and he was obliged to keep his students safe. 

As to the other teachers, perhaps they were held accountable and reprimanded.  However, the extent of their responsibility or carelessness does not diminish Mr Krix's responsibility for the accident. 

[chuk_77]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

@ 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....

---

yes i think, thats why i wrote it, not sure though how all those quotes ended up there. I only quoted lurkers post 

not sure what your post is about though

[cherry*135]

He was on probation because he started working at a Public School ( previous employed by Privated schools)..

 There has been no mention of  prior misconduct.

[azureline**]

I would call this prior misconduct.

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.

[cherry*135]

I was thinking  of prior misconduct from other schools before he was employed at Riverstone High.

He was already on probation at Riverstone School (from when he started there) when all those other incidents occured & serious warnings were given wasn't he?

[chuk_77]

thats what i was refering to, thanks azure

[azureline**]

no idea and it's 5 pages long.........................can I be bothered checking?

[cherry*135]

I am pretty sure as another poster mentioned, this teacher started the job at Riverstone High on probation (because he hadn't worked in the Public School system before, or if he had it was a long time ago).

21  Given that conduct, and given that it occurred all in the first 20 weeks of his probationary appointment, and given that Mr Krix is even now unable to see that there was anything wrong with any of his conduct, albeit he concedes that greater safety precautions might have been taken with the science experiment, I cannot see that it was either harsh, or unjust, or unreasonable to terminate his employment by annulling his probationary appointment.

124 In that context I cannot see that the dismissal of a probationary teacher with such significant incidents of misconduct, involving conduct which more than once put at risk the safety of students, in the first 20 weeks of his employment was harsh. It was not, particularly given the obligation to protect students to which I refer above, and Mr Krix's inability to see that he has done anything wrong, and further expresses no contrition for that conduct or for his breach of a lawful direction given to him, unreasonable. The dismissal was lawful, and, again having regard to, specifically, s.5A of the Teaching Service Act and the considerations referred to by Mr Schipp and set out above, it was just.

[cherry*135]

2 Mr Krix's probationary appointment was annulled on 30 November 2012 by way of a letter from Mr Kevin Schipp, A/Director, Employee Performance and Conduct of the Department.

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.

Mr Schipp's evidence

Q As a probationer what was your view, what's the point of the probationary period from your perspective?

A The point of the probation period is to determine, I think it's described somewhere I've read, it's a period of time where both parties decide whether they are suitable to each other.