CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- It was no surprise when the West Virginia Board of Education recently voted down two proposals that would have drastically changed high school sports in West Virginia.

The first was a proposal to move to four classes in football and basketball. I am among those still celebrating soccer finally being divided into two SSAC classes, so I will leave that issue alone right now.

The other proposal was to lengthen the summer practice period from three weeks to virtually the entire June-August break.

Somewhere along the way, the whole summer practice idea turned away from its original concept -- to permit coaches more time to work with players.

The existing three-week period provides plenty of time for teams to assemble and for coaches to introduce old players to new ones, and new ones to new systems.

When the idea of extending the summer practice period was brought up recently, images of year-round team practices began dancing through people's heads.

For some youngsters that would have meant no summer job, no summer camp, no vacation, etc. ... You get the point.

Athletes playing multiple sports at small schools could have practiced from dawn until dusk. That is why the state board overwhelmingly voted down the proposal.

They should have, because it was the wrong proposal. It was way too large and vague.

Simply, coaches want to be able to work with players on their free throw shooting, their passing, their fielding, their pitching, or whatever without it being a rule violation.

Teachers who work with students in the summer are considered almost heroic. In some cases, they charge for tutoring to pick up extra cash. Coaches who do the same outside of the designated three-week period are rule breakers.

So, here is a compromise proposal that could make everyone happy and benefit student-athletes.

Allow coaches to work on skills with one, two, or three players only at one time.

No running plays, no full teams drilling ... just a pitcher and a catcher, a quarterback and a receiver, a forward and a goalie, or just a boy or girl wanting to work on a jumpshot.

Children who come from families with the ability to pay for private lessons can this help anyway from people outside the control of the school system. Such a rule may even the playing fields and courts a bit for the less privileged.

Or, perhaps coaches could charge for extra tutoring in the offseason -- and I am talking year-round here, not just summer.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- It was no surprise when the West Virginia Board of Education recently voted down two proposals that would have drastically changed high school sports in West Virginia.

The first was a proposal to move to four classes in football and basketball. I am among those still celebrating soccer finally being divided into two SSAC classes, so I will leave that issue alone right now.

The other proposal was to lengthen the summer practice period from three weeks to virtually the entire June-August break.

Somewhere along the way, the whole summer practice idea turned away from its original concept -- to permit coaches more time to work with players.

The existing three-week period provides plenty of time for teams to assemble and for coaches to introduce old players to new ones, and new ones to new systems.

When the idea of extending the summer practice period was brought up recently, images of year-round team practices began dancing through people's heads.

For some youngsters that would have meant no summer job, no summer camp, no vacation, etc. ... You get the point.

Athletes playing multiple sports at small schools could have practiced from dawn until dusk. That is why the state board overwhelmingly voted down the proposal.

They should have, because it was the wrong proposal. It was way too large and vague.

Simply, coaches want to be able to work with players on their free throw shooting, their passing, their fielding, their pitching, or whatever without it being a rule violation.

Teachers who work with students in the summer are considered almost heroic. In some cases, they charge for tutoring to pick up extra cash. Coaches who do the same outside of the designated three-week period are rule breakers.

So, here is a compromise proposal that could make everyone happy and benefit student-athletes.

Allow coaches to work on skills with one, two, or three players only at one time.

No running plays, no full teams drilling ... just a pitcher and a catcher, a quarterback and a receiver, a forward and a goalie, or just a boy or girl wanting to work on a jumpshot.

Children who come from families with the ability to pay for private lessons can this help anyway from people outside the control of the school system. Such a rule may even the playing fields and courts a bit for the less privileged.

Or, perhaps coaches could charge for extra tutoring in the offseason -- and I am talking year-round here, not just summer.

You could ask whether or not that gives a kid paying for private lessons a leg up in competing for a starting position.

If you do, then you would also have to ask all teachers who tutor on the side if it gives those students they tutor a leg up for a better grade in class.

I think in both cases the coach and teacher will respond that the player or student still has to earn what he or she gets.

If you want to add another level of control, require a letter requesting the extra help be on file at the school. Only an athlete who has asked in writing for extra help could receive it.

By the way, this is not fiction. The NCAA has a similar rule that works well in several sports.

So, keep the idea of coaches being allowed to spend more time working with players ... Just shrink it a little.

*  *  *

Winfield High Principal Bill Hughes has said he will make a proposal to the State Board of Education to allow for non-teacher coaches to earn a form of tenure after three years of coaching.

Good for him. Can anyone argue that having the best available coaches for youth is the best idea?

Does anyone want to argue that school administrators (principals and vice principals) cannot pick those people?

I don't think so.

A quick Internet search finds that New York has given non-teacher coaches that sort of tenure since 2001. If a person coaches for three years and has good reviews, the coach is considered to have the same rights as a licensed teacher who is coaching.

Ohio does not even require three years since a new law took effect in March 2007. That law says that schools may renew contracts for non-teacher coaches whether or not a qualified teacher applicant exists. They also do not have to advertise the position.

A few years ago, a law change similar to what Hughes plans to propose had gained substantial support until reportedly teachers' union officials began lobbying against it.

This time, everyone needs to keep a closer eye on the bill when it makes its way through the system.

After all, shouldn't teachers more than anyone want what's best for the students?