Apologies for the above post. I have misrepresented the findings of fact in the Krix case. What I quoted were the allegations. Not all of these allegations were found to be true.
I have extracted the pertinent findings of fact below. I encourage anyone who is interested to read the case as it will provide background on the evidence presented and the reasons for making the various findings.
The case relates to the dismissal of Mr Krix on the basis of misconduct. The dismissal was based on several grounds which were discussed by the Tribunal in the allegations section of the reasons (see paras 29 to 34).
Briefly:
- Allegation 1: that Mr Krix demeaned a student during a science class, culminating in a scuffle
- Allegation 2: that Mr Krix pulled a chair from under a year 8 student causing her to fall, that he grabbed her by the jumper and called her a "sooky baby" and that he grabbed 3 year 7 students and caused them to fall
- Allegation 3: that he did not follow proper proceedure in setting up a science experiment involving flamable liquid, that he breached his duty of care in relation to his students by failing to properly supervise the experiment such that one student received serious burns and two others caught on fire
- Allegation 4: that he breached a written direction not to come into unnecessary physical contact with and make inappropriate comments to his students
In assessing the facts of the matter, Commissioner Newell did not find the evidence of Mr Krix to be reliable. He also had issues with other evidence presented by the Applicant. Commissioner Newell accepted that Mr Krix was a skillful teacher stating (at para 26 and 27):
26 Mr Krix is obviously a person with significant abilities in a number of life skills. He has, on the evidence, the ability to convey those skills to students. Students came before the Commission speaking highly of Mr Krix as a teacher. He has a substantial body of achievement, largely in the independent school system but also in other areas, including voluntary work. I note as just one example his success in training long term unemployed and ex-prisoners in the LEAP programme.
27 However, it is the specific matter of his conduct as a classroom teacher in the Department that this case falls to be determined.
In relation to the allegations of misconduct, Commissioner Newell addresssed the allegations at para 53 and onwards:
70 In my view what the evidence establishes is that Mr Krix, no doubt very understandably irritated by a student who refused to work, who distracted others and who swore when told to do some work, got in O'Hanlon's face. O'Hanlon swore at him, rose to his feet so that both were standing on either side of a desk, and pushed him away. Mr Krix was not moved by the push and said so, and O'Hanlon became enraged and punched Mr Krix in the face with his left fist. Mr Krix then, in a manner which would be entirely understandable in a context other than a teacher and student, grabbed the boy in a way that involved him having O'Hanlon's head under his arm, and wrestled with him across the room, at least one desk being overturned. I accept that O'Hanlon attempted, unsuccessfully, to punch Mr Krix further.
In relation to the allegations contained in allegation 1, Commissioner Newell found Mr Krix:
- wrote on the class whiteboard words to the effect of 'Jarrad the taker' while making thrusting movements with his body;
- stood in close proximity to Jarrad's face and refused to move after he told you to '**bleep** off' several times;
- grabbed Jarrad around the neck in a 'headlock' and dragged him over his desk, causing the desk to tip over;
- continued to wrestle with Jarrad round the classroom;
In relation to allegation 2, Commissioner Newell determined the allegation in respect of the year 8 student was not sufficiently supported by the evidence, but in relation to the year 7 students:
89 What I find actually happened is that the three boys had misbehaved; Mr Krix had told them they were not leaving the classroom; they made a bolt for it; he stood in the doorway to prevent them getting out and to give effect to his decision that they should stay behind. When they reached him he grasped at them to attempt to prevent them leaving; the boys, thrown off balance by being held onto - to use his words - by Mr Krix, fell over each other and through the doorway. At that point Mr Krix said either 'bloody idiots' or 'stupid idiots'. The boys suffered some minor knocks in the falling over but I have no doubt Mr Krix had no intention of hurting them.
90 Mr Krix was no doubt right in directing the boys to remain in the classroom, as hey had misbehaved and disrupted his class. He was not, however, entitled to physically restrain them when they attempted to leave. He had been told by his Head Teacher, Ms Fairweather, as early as March 2012 that 'teachers cannot block classroom doorways and they should not obstruct students trying to leave the class' even if there were a disciplinary issue involved: Fairweather affidavit para [42].
91 Further, and importantly, by that date he had specifically been directed not to have unnecessary physical contact with students.
In relation to the allegation 3 concerning the science experiment:
93 The particulars of allegation 3 emerge from a science experiment conducted by Mr Krix involving flammable and inflammable liquids. There was some suggestion that the experiment was not within syllabus but I do not need to determine that question. However, his attempts to deal with that proposition led Mr Krix to give further evidence which in my view suggested recent invention and was unsatisfactory.
94 What did happen on that day was that Mr Krix decided to conduct the experiment, or demonstration, outdoors.
95 He set up the experiment, and in the course of it he ignited petrol so that it was aflame in a science pneumatic trough, which is a low container, on the ground. He instructed his class to stand back behind a line clearly marked by logs. The school principal saw the experiment up to this point and raised no concerns with it.
96 On the evidence, Mr Krix had containers of flammable materials in his utility. At one point he saw a student trying to take a can of fuel from the utility. He left the experiment and returned to his utility to prevent this occurring. He retrieved the material the student was attempting to take, and secured his utility tarpaulin.
97 While he was away from the immediate site of the experiment doing this, some students who were not meant to be present, as they were not in Mr Krix's class, were kicking at the pots of flaming liquid. They egged each other on until one boy kicked a pot over; the flaming liquid spilled on three boys. One boy, John Harris, was seriously hurt. He suffered significant burns when his clothing was set alight. The other two were not hurt.
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.
99 To 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.
In relation to allegation 4 concerning the breach of a written direction not to come into unnecessary physical contact with his students, that allegation was substantiated with the respect to the facts found at in relation to allegations 1 and 2.
What I take from the above is that Mr Krix is not an ogre and is not a bad teacher. But he appears to have made some bad choices. One may infer from the fact of the written direction which is the subject of allegation 4, that certain aspects of Mr Krix's pedagogical style were found lacking, to the point that he had been formally directed to amend his behaviour. It appears that Mr Krix was either unwilling or unable to comply with this direction and was accordingly dismissed on the grounds of misconduct.
None of this affects the debate as to whether a teacher should be allowed to fight back if assaulted by a student (but I vote no on that one). However, it appears that the NSW Dept of Education and Communities has a policy on this point and you get fired for breaching the policy.
