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! 

[ptb333 · Accepted solution]

Thanks.  It is a pity that all the great work and influences Mr Krix was directly responsible for are ignored. The kid who punched him should be put in jail for hitting a public officer.

[azureline**]

So, I am unsure why this is an issue now if he is no longer working as a teacher?

[lakeland27]

this is the same teacher who was responsible for a student being badly burnt. he's not fit to be a teacher..

[polksaladallie]

---

@lind9650 wrote:

---

Me too!

If my son would have punched a teacher because he wanted hom to take the earplugs out , my son would have gotten more than just a headlock from me.

Discipline and respect has to be taught at home, and if that fails, I blame the parent.

Erica

---

Assault is NOT discipline.

[missjigsaw]

If your son punched a teacher, I dare say that the teacher would be happy to deal with you. I would be as well.

[polksaladallie]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

bring back beltings ? i'm a product of corporal punishment, they'll think like me

---

I suspect that many here are products of corporal punishment. 

Assault on children pushes them  <<<<<<< this way or >>>>> that way.  There is no inbetween.

[lind9650]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

---

@lind9650 wrote:

---

Me too!

If my son would have punched a teacher because he wanted hom to take the earplugs out , my son would have gotten more than just a headlock from me.

Discipline and respect has to be taught at home, and if that fails, I blame the parent.

Erica

---

Assault is NOT discipline.

---

Ha???

The Schoolboy assaulted the Teacher, the Teacher put him in a headlock to restrain the violent boy.

I did not say that discipline and respect is being achieved by assaulting anyone.

Erica

[newell368]

I grew up knowing this guy and i respect him aswell, he would not do anything unless he felt it was absolutly necessary. i stand by him as a friend and as someone who was there to offer advice when it was needed

[newell368]

 lind9650

i grew up knowing this teacher, i also saw him as a school rugby coach. he is one of THE most genuine people you will come across, i can tell you that he likes to see kids succeed

[aftanas]

I can understand those who are supporting Mr Krix.  If this student punched his teacher he definitely needs discipline.  But Mr Krix was not disciplining his student when he was fighting with him. 

If that child were mine, I would expect him to be disciplied by the school.  However, I would expect them to apply a legal sanction.  I would understand if the incident was reported to the police.  But I would not tolerate a teacher getting into a fight with my child.  I would accept it if the teacher was cornered but I would expect the teacher to avoid the fight if at all possible.

Sav74 is correct about this story being bad journalism.  A lot of people here have theorised about what actually happened.   As I stated in my earlier post, the case was reviews by the NSW Industrial Relations Commissioner.  The text of the decision may be found at http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=169247.

It took me about two minutes to find the decision.

In relation to Mr Krix's misconduct the Tribunal made findings of fact as follows

29 The express findings of misconduct within the meaning of the Teaching Service Act upon with the decision to annul Mr Krix's appointment, and which, as I say above, the Department therefore had an obligation to make out, were as follows.

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.'

 
31 Those 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.

 After reading the above I think everyone here can make their own judgemnets about the incident.