The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge COHN JUBELIRER.
I reluctantly concur with Senior Judge Colins’ well-reasoned opinion. I write separately, however, to express my concern over the difficulties school districts face when confronted with problems such as the one exhibited in this case.
I believe our precedent severely impedes the ability of school districts to ensure the welfare and safety of their students. Although there is, or should be, a strong public policy in favor of the proper supervision and education of the children of the Commonwealth, it appears, in this case, not to have been shown to be sufficiently “well-defined, dominant and ascertain[able] by reference to ... laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests,” as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit # 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, 595 Pa. 648, 662 , 939 A.2d 855, 866 (2007). The Supreme Court, in Westmoreland, set a high and exacting standard to show a public policy that can provide an exception to the essence test. In this case, however, the District did not articulate a policy sufficient to meet the requirements set out in Westmoreland. It is possible that, under the facts of this ease, it would have been impossible to do so. However, because such a policy was not sufficiently shown, I am compelled to concur with the majority.