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]

---

@freakiness wrote:

Yes, he seemed to have blatant disregard for OH&S standards.  To take fuel in a ute to a school with unruly students is negligent.  

---

According to the Hawkesbury Gazette ( a newspaper local to the Hawkesbury region which includes Riverstone) the experiment was conducted with the approval of the Principal of the school and attended by another class which was supervised by their own teacher.

"toward the end of the experiment, the Principal had left, and unbeknown to Mr Krix, so had the other teacher". The other teacher had left half of the class at the oval. Mr Krix looked up to find students from the other class stealing petrol from the back of his ute that he'd set up as a barricade between the class and the experiment."

"Mr Krix said he believes two students had kicked the experiment and it had splashed on the boys leg setting his pants on fire."

"despite the child sustaining burns, there were no complaints after the incident - in fact Mr Krix was praised for saving the student".

So what happened with the other teacher ? Was she reprimanded for leaving half her class unattended?

[azureline**]

informed about what?? I was talking about the boy. I didn't see anywhere, where he is a parent.

[aftanas]

Icyfroth

        your newspaper report of the experiment conflicts with the IRC decision which found that the allegations in respect of the experiment were made out.  These allegations 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.

Commissioner Newell further said:

98 It is not to the point that the students involved were not Mr Krix's students. It is not to the point that another teacher had left the students unattended. Mr Krix was in charge of a potentially very dangerous experiment. It was incumbent on Mr Krix to control the experiment and control the students. Mr Krix under no circumstances should have been absent from the immediate site of the experiment while flammable fuels were burning and accessible. 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.

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here.  Is it your argument that the Hawksbury Gazette has undertaken a more rigorous analysis of the evidence than the IRC such that its findings of fact are preferable.  Or are you saying that Mr Krix is not responsible for the injury to his students because another adult, who apparently was not in charge of the experiment, was briefly present.

[azureline**]

---

@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.

[icyfroth]

---

@aftanas wrote:

Icyfroth

        your newspaper report of the experiment conflicts with the IRC decision which found that the allegations in respect of the experiment were made out.  These allegations 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.

Commissioner Newell further said:

98 It is not to the point that the students involved were not Mr Krix's students. It is not to the point that another teacher had left the students unattended. Mr Krix was in charge of a potentially very dangerous experiment. It was incumbent on Mr Krix to control the experiment and control the students. Mr Krix under no circumstances should have been absent from the immediate site of the experiment while flammable fuels were burning and accessible. 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.

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here.  Is it your argument that the Hawksbury Gazette has undertaken a more rigorous analysis of the evidence than the IRC such that its findings of fact are preferable.  Or are you saying that Mr Krix is not responsible for the injury to his students because another adult, who apparently was not in charge of the experiment, was briefly present.

---

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.

[nevynreally]

---

@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.

---

I read that post the same as Icyfroth did. That you were talking about the teacher, not the pupil.

[icyfroth]

---

@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.

[cherry*135]

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.

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.

 

 

 

[cherry*135]

az's post was in response to the news article posted that preceded her post.

Student that punched a teacher who was subsequently fired for putting him in a headlock feels no remorse

Goes to show people overeact when they haven't even read the thread properly.

[aftanas]

---

---

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.