The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Three perspectives on the prospects for success at next week's Camp David summit; Betty Ann Bowser then reports on the George W. Bush education record; Ray Suarez examines the new genome debate over patenting genes; and we have a report on the devastating effects of AIDS in Botswana. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Israel and the Palestinians today tried to lower expectations for next week's summit. Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian leader Arafat are to meet with President Clinton at Camp David outside Washington. Barak said the chances of success are 50%, like the toss of a coin. A main Palestinian negotiator said the talks were unlikely to resolve major disputes. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Yugoslavia's parliament took action today to keep President Milosevic in power. It amended theConstitution to let him run for another four-year term next year. In Washington, a State Department spokesman called it a grotesque effort to block democratic change.

RICHARD BOUCHER: He's changing the rules because he cannot win fairly now. He's stripping away legal formats behind which he's hidden, and the choice we think for the people of Serbia and for his coalition is stark. It's either him or democracy in Serbia.

JIM LEHRER: Members of the political opposition in Yugoslavia also criticized the changes. They said Milosevic thinks if he stays in o ice, he'll avoid prosecution for alleged war crimes in Kosovo. He's under indictment by an international tribunal. In Northern Ireland, British army patrols and rain showers helped limit violence in Belfast overnight. But masked youths did throw gasoline bombs at police and cars. Rioting broke out earlier this week after authorities banned a traditional Protestant march through a Catholic neighborhood. Today, a second parade was banned. Airline workers declared today an international day of action against air rage. Unions for flight attendants and ground crews passed out leaflets at airports. They said dangerous behavior by passengers has increased worldwide. In the United States alone, there were more than 50incidents last year, up from just 66 in 1997. In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a flight attendant said this...

GAYLE PAPPAS, Flight Attendant: Now that we have lower fares, more people are traveling, more airlines on discounted rates. So we have all different classes of people traveling today, and it's no longer just a business type situation. It's vacation and fun, so we do have a lot more of it now than we've ever had before because of the nature the people that are flying.

JIM LEHRER: The unions said air rage incidents range from noisy behavior to outright violence. They want heavier fines for unruly passengers, among other things. At Wimbledon today, American Venus Williams beat her younger sister, Serena, in the women's semifinals. It was the most important match between sisters since the first women's final at Wimbledon, 116 years ago. American Lindsay Davenport also advanced today. She'll play Venus Williams in the title match, Saturday. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to another try at Middle East peace, the bush education record, patenting genes, and AIDS in Botswana.

FOCUS - SEARCHING FOR PEACE

JIM LEHRER: The Camp David summit: Edward Djerejian was assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs in the Bush administration, and has served as ambassador to Israel and Syria. He is now director of the James Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. Nitzan Horowitz is Washington bureau chief for the Israeli newspaper "Ha'aretz." And Khalil Jahshan is vice president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, Prime Minister Barak today said the chances of success at this summit next week at Camp David are 50-50. What kind of odds would you put on it?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: I think that's a good odds to put on this summit because I don't think this is a summit that has been prepared in a manner in which the substantive gaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians have been sufficiently narrowed whereby you can assume a great chance of success. But I think, Jim, what's very important to put into perspective is that this summit is being convened to try to establish a framework agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is not one to hammer out agreement on all these highly contentious issues.

JIM LEHRER: It's just a way to... Just to agree on a way to proceed, is that right? Mr. Ambassador?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Yes, it's a way to proceed on some of the major issues, which are final-status issues: Jerusalem, the Israeli settlements, the borders, security and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. These are highly contentious issues, which are going to involve a great deal more negotiation by the parties and will also need to have an international effort put in place. For example, on the issue of Palestinian refugees, the issue of compensation resentment will need a massive international effort.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Horowitz, why is there this kind of downbeat approach? Usually when people get together for big meetings like this, everybody's very optimistic and "I think we can work this thing out." Nobody's saying that at all, in fact quite the contrary.

NITZAN HOROWITZ: Yes, that's true. Well, you see, Jim, the thing is that after nine queers after peace process, we finally arrive to the very hard-core issues of the conflict. And these are major decisions that must be taken now in the coming few months. Now, Arafat said that he is going to declare a Palestinian state in September. So Palestinians now are saying that, from now till September, maybe there will be even another summit. So for this summit for the coming week, they are still keeping their options, cards close to the chest and they are not revealing any positions. And there will still be a lot of negotiations to get an agreement.

JIM LEHRER: What is your understanding as to what Israel wants to come out of this summit next week at Camp David?

NITZAN HOROWITZ: Well, Israel, definitely Barak, would like to have a Palestinian declaration that the conflict is finished, is ended and that there is, let's say, regional peace. That's his most important goal. Israel would like to have a definition of the borders of the Palestinian... of the future Palestinian state, and Israel would like the Palestinians to agree on some modalities about Jerusalem and the refugees. If they can achieve that, it's a lot.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. And Mr. Jahshan, what is it that the Palestinians want to come out of this next week, as you understand it?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Well, the Palestinians are probably as depressed as anybody else in terms of the prospects of that. As a matter of fact, the most recent public opinion just released yesterday in the West Bank shows that more than 68% do not expect a permanent status agreement to emerge by the end of this year. And more than 51, 52% do not think that statehood will be declared the way Arafat has been promising the Palestinian people for a while. But in general, what the Palestinians expect, at least the PA, the Palestinian Authority, the PLO that's negotiating these agreements, expects from that is some agreement, maybe a hybrid, a little bit beyond what Ambassador Djerejian mentioned earlier. I think the stage for a framework agreement has already passed. This was supposed to be the deadline for that was supposed to be January and February of this year. What is needed right now is some sort of a hybrid agreement, something beyond kind of a framework agreement plus, but a permanent status agreement minus -- something in between the two, but still tackling the fundamental issues that have been avoided. These are the issues that Ambassador Djerejian alluded to earlier, the refugees, the settlements, Jerusalem, the boundaries. These are issues that supposedly were supposed to be negotiated and resolved between May of 1996 and May of 1999. But because at the time the presence of a government... the existence of a government in Israel that was not willing to proceed with these things, the Netanyahu government, they have been postponed and they remain unresolved to this day.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, help us in a general way to understand why it even matters that these things be resolved now -- for instance, this deadline of assessment. What's at stake? What's going to happen if they can't reach an agreement by then?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Well, Jim, I think that this summit is being called more for considerations of crisis management than the middle east, which is a very legitimate reason to have a summit, to avoid further violence in the Middle East in a few months' time. There are political calendars at work in the Middle East. One is the September 13th deadline established by Arafat, be it September or December, depending on what decision is made -- to declare the establishment of independent Palestinian state. Now, the Israelis have said if the Palestinians go and unilaterally declare a state, Israel, on its behalf, will take some unilateral actions, such as annexing certain land in the West Bank that it considers essential. Now, this is a formula for instability in the region. But these political calendars at work are very complex. I've just mentioned the Palestinian one. There's the Israeli one, the loss of coalition support for Prime Minister Barak. President Clinton, he's nearing the end of his administration, and would certainly like to have a Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement as part of his foreign policy record. So therefore, I think this is truly one of political considerations and avoiding a crisis in the region.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see it that way, Mr. Horowitz, that there's... that some terrible things could happen in the area if this thing isn't worked out?

NITZAN HOROWITZ: Yes, there is a great fear, at least in Israel, from break of violence and bloodshed if there is no agreement.

JIM LEHRER: Between whom and whom over what?

NITZAN HOROWITZ: Between Israelis and Palestinians... terrorism...

JIM LEHRER: Where, I mean, on the West Bank?

NITZAN HOROWITZ: The West Bank and Gaza and all those places of confrontation. This is why there is really a heavy burden on both Arafat and Barak to reach an agreement, because otherwise, there is going to be bloodshed. And still, they will face the same problems, as President Clinton mentioned. I think that, you know, that the main thing here is that in this tiny piece of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, there are nine million people, five million Jews, four million Arabs. We live actually together, and we cannot afford a confrontation because there is just not enough room for that. And so sooner or later, they will have to reach an agreement, and the sooner the better.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah, but sooner or later, if it's not sooner, people are going to die, is that what you're saying?

NITZAN HOROWITZ: I'm afraid so, yes.

JIM LEHRER: Is that right, Mr. Jahshan?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Yes, I think the administration is right about that. Certainly what we have heard from them over the past couple of days, having had some meetings with both state and the White House...

JIM LEHRER: You have? You've been talking to them?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Yes. ...the President feels that there is still a good chance for an agreement in spite of the seriousness of the remaining differences or gaps between the two parties. Number two, he feels that the negotiations thus far are taking place initially in Europe, in Stockholm and then later in the Middle East most recently, have kind of exhausted their usefulness, that the teams themselves cannot make the type of decisions that need to be made at higher level -- henceforth, the need for the summit three. He feels that time is not on anybody's side. He feels that there are some time constraints on the Israeli side, time constraints on the Palestinian side and undoubtedly some time constraints on the American side. So the President made his decision on the basis of these three components, taking into consideration the fact that, in the Middle East, if things stagnate, they are apt to deteriorate, they are not apartment to get better.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, is this an opportunity, a likely... well, is it the responsibility of the United States, having called this summit now, the President has asked prime minister and Mr. Arafat to come, that the United States has to put something on the table, say, "you guys haven't been able to work it out, here's what that what we suggest?" Has it come to that, do you think?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Absolutely, Jim. I think that having called this summit, President Clinton has to go way beyond the role of a facilitator of just bringing the parties together. He has to truly act as a mediator, and he has to be willing to take the political heat from both sides: The Arab side, the Israeli side because tough decisions have to be made to narrow these very important substantive gaps on these sensitive issues we mentioned. And there's another factor: Sustainability. The President's going to have to hang in there. It may take much longer than a week or two weeks or three weeks. Look at the President of Jimmy carter at Camp David...

JIM LEHRER: How long did that take? Refresh your memory.

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: That took months. And he had to go to the region after Camp David in order to hammer out the final agreements. And I agree what's been stated earlier, that this may just be one of another or another summit following that one. But the important thing is sustainability and the political will, the political will on the part of the American President to see this through and take the political heat. The political will on the part of the Israeli prime minister and Arafat to take the heat from their constituencies. And there's a great deal of heat that everybody is feeling.

JIM LEHRER: Does the President of the United States have to start talking in terms of potential violence to get even the attention of the American... most American people don't understand what's at stake in this. This has been going on for so long, people talk, they don't talk, they come to Washington, they go to Shepherdstown, they go this and that and nothing happens.

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Well, I think these stakes have to be outlined without causing great alarm, but the focus really has to be on the substance of the talks and trying to reach a settlement. That is really what is key. And Arafat is in front of some precedents here that are going to make it more difficult for him. Barak, very boldly unilaterally withdrew from Southern Lebanon to the international border. The Israeli-Jordanian treaty, they went to the border. In Camp David, the Israelis withdrew to the border. And so Arafat is going to be under pressure by his own people to regain, if not all the land, a great, great portion of the West Bank in order to justify any agreement to his people. So there's a lot at stake here.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Jahshan, can Yasser Arafat use the pressure from the President of the United States to help him with his own people to take something that he might not otherwise be able to do if it was just offered by the Israelis?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: I'm not sure to what extent Yasser Arafat can withstand pressure from the United States. As a matter of fact, when you raised the question earlier in this conversation as to why people are not so enthused about this summit, particularly in the Arab world, it's because of that. It's for fear that Barak is going to gang with Clinton against Arafat and put undue pressure on him since he's the weakest of the three parties and somehow extract some concessions from him beyond what is borne Arab wise and Palestinian wise -- especially when you hear statements from the administration kind of like as the motto for this summit that, "no party will go home after this summit feeling that it's a loser, but none will go home with 100 percent of what they came to Washington to get." You know, it's easy for example, to justify that on the part of the Israelis who certainly not only have 100% in Israel but are occupying Palestinian land, but for the Palestinians coming to the table asking for 20% of their... what they consider their historical homeland of Palestine and to expect only a fraction of that to go home, it's going to be a hard, tough sell for Arafat, should he particularly, as Mr. Horowitz mentioned earlier, sign what Barak wants him to sign, which is an end-of-conflict agreement in return for being home for with a small fraction of Palestine. Most Palestinians will not go for that.

JIM LEHRER: Will Barak go along with what President Clinton has in mind?

NITZAN HOROWITZ: I think so. And it's not a small fraction. Actually, what Barak is talking about is more than 90% of the occupied territories. 10% is actually settlement area that Barak will not be able to move or remove. So I think this 90% compromise or settlement is really the maximum red line that Barak can afford in order to stay in power, as simply as that.

JIM LEHRER: A lot of lines.

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Certainly, a lot of lines. And there are a lot of lines on the Palestinian side. I mean we have to understand that, even though there is lack of symmetry in this conflict and has been for many years, but one has to understand that there is also a public opinion on the Palestinian side, there is a Palestinian street, it has its own sensitivities and aspirations and concerns, and these must be taken into consideration.

JIM LEHRER: Okay, gentlemen, we'll see what happens. Thank you all three very much.

SERIES - ON THE RECORD

JIM LEHRER: Now we begin a new series as part of our ongoing coverage of Campaign 2000, an examination of the governing and voting records of the two leading presidential candidates. Our first focus is education. And Betty Ann Bowser has this report on the education record of Texas Governor George W. Bush.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In his race for the White House, education is what George w. Bush talks more than any other issue.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: No one in my state of Texas now doubts that public schools can improve. We're witnessing the promise of high standards and accountability. We require that every child read by the third grade, without exception or excuse. And every year we test students on academic basics.

STUDENT: "No doubt with the force of large amounts..."

TEACHER: And what do you think that matches?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: He especially likes to point out how much improvement poor minority kids have made in Texas public schools since he was first elected Governor in 1994. And Worsham Elementary, just North of Houston, is one of the Governor's showcase schools.

CHILDREN: The sun has got his hat on, hip hip hip hooray. The sun has got his hat on

and he's coming out today.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Worsham students do indeed have a lot to sing about these days, because the school breaks all the stereotypes about poor minority kids. (Speaking Spanish) 86% of the kids are Hispanic, 88% of the student body is on the federal government's free or reduced lunch program, a traditional marker of poverty.

TEACHER: Okay, did you work hard?

CHILDREN:(In unison): Yes!

TEACHER: All right, keep it up.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Nevertheless, this school has been cited as an exemplary school for the last six years, the highest rating any school can get from the Texas Education Agency. Worsham s a state-of the art computer lab, and nearly one quarter of the school's students take after school skills- development courses. (Backstreet Boys tape playing) kids here are eager to participate in school activities, like these third graders rehearsing for a school- wide talent show. And test scores here are soaring. Last year 98% of Hispanic third and fourth graders passed a standardized reading test, beating the statewide average for white students. That runs counter to a nationwide trend, in which minority test scores lag behind those of white students.

TEACHER: Five times four is what, Anna?

ANNA: 20.

TEACHER: 20, all right.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Marty Cortes has been teaching third-grade math and science at Worsham for three years.

MARTY CORTES, Third Grade Teacher: When I first got here I was baffled and amazed. I was, "Oh, my God, they're learning fractions and common denominators." And they're learning all these other type of skills, that... and at first you think they can't learn this. But we have expectations for them, and you work with them, and you teach them, and you see that they get it, and they're capable and able to do it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Cortes says schools today are very different than the ones he attended 12 years ago, when Texas was ranked near the bottom on national education assessments.

MARTY CORTES: When I grew up here in Texas, there was no accountability system, and I was easily a child who could have fallen between the cracks.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Governor Bush loves to brag about schools like Worsham Elementary, but the education reform movement actually began years before he was elected Governor. Back in the 1980's, at a time when Texas public schoolchildren were performing in the bottom third of all kids in the United States, a group of business and civic leaders got together -- headed by billionaire Ross Perot-- and wrote what became the foundation for the education reform movement today. (Classroom teaching) They call it an Accountability System, and it includes testing kids in grades three through eight, and then again in tenth grade, rating the schools according to those scores, and then publishing the ratings in local papers. Darv Winock helped design the system.

DARV WINOCK, Businessman: You lay out the expectations, then you align those standards with what's taught. Which means a big job: Getting the right textbooks, getting the right kind of material, training the teachers, but you teach, and then you measure to see whether they taught it, or whether the kids learned it.

TEACHER: Ten plus... 2x and ten plus...

BETTY ANN BOWSER: If schools receive a low performance rating three years in a row, the teachers and the principal can lose their jobs. None of those ideas was developed by Bush, but he has signed onto them wholeheartedly. And he has significantly raised the bar for schools to be considered successful. Originally 20% of kids had to pass the Texas assessment of academic skills test, also known as the TASS Test. Now 50% must pass, or the school is considered unsatisfactory.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: When I ran for Governor, I said "Give me a chance to set high standards and elevate the bar. Give me a chance to provide options for parents if the status quo is unacceptable. Give me a chance."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: One option that Bush was unable to get through the legislature was a voucher system, that would have given state money to children in low- performing schools, so they could transfer to a private school.

TEACHER: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Ironically, private schools are exempt from the whole accountability system which Bush promotes, and although he failed to get it in Texas, Governor Bush has said he would like to see a national voucher system if he's elected president. That's just what worries Bob Chase, head of the National Education Association, because Bush has said he would use federal Title I money, now earmarked for poor children to fund his program.

BOB CHASE, National Education Association: We know when we look at the voucher experiments that have been going on in Cleveland and Milwaukee that they don't work. The Governor is proposing that we take $1,500 out of Title I money, and let that go with a child to a school of choice, which could be a private school, which could be a sectarian school.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: How about the system that is like it is today? You receive Title I money, you don't have to show anybody whether or not the children are learning. That doesn't work. That's a system that gives up on children.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Governor Bush has also been a strong proponent of charter schools. When he came into office five years ago, there were no independently-run public schools in the state; now there are 180. Most education experts say it's too early to say whether the charter schools have been successful. There have been some outright failures: Three have been shut down by the state, nine others have voluntarily closed their doors. Overall, the Texas reform movement has attracted the attention of people all across the country, who are looking for ways to improve schools in other states. Amy Wilkins is with the Education Trust, a non-profit educational organization in Washington, DC.

AMY WILKINS, Education Trust: The Texas education story is really one of the few success stories in the country. What you see in Texas is, you see all students' scores rising, but you see something that we think is just as important. You see the gap between minority kids and white kids closing, which demonstrates to us that all kids can achieve at high levels, if their schools are required to teach them at high levels. And Texas really does demand that all kids in the state be educated at increasingly high levels. They aren't there yet. Texas isn't nirvana. They've made mistakes. It's not perfect. But they are really making progress in areas that other states aren't making progress in.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Wilkins particularly likes the system because the scores of minority students are broken out and rated separately, instead of having them averaged in with all students' scores. She says that forces schools to pay more attention to minority students. Again, it wasn't an innovation made by Governor Bush, but he does fully support it.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: And I can point to Texas and show people where the test scores are up, particularly amongst our African American youngsters, and Hispanic youngsters, because we've changed the world. We've got a new attitude. We're going to help people early. We've raised the bar. And people are responding. And I want to take that attitude of reform to Washington, DC.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But some educators think there have been negative consequences from the Texas reforms, particularly for minority students. Linda McNeil is a professor at Rice University and has been studying Texas schools for 15 years. She's also the author of a new book called, "Contradictions of School Reform." She says the accountability system does nothing to help poor, minority schools.

LINDA McNEIL, Rice University: It looks very seductive, because it looks inexpensive, and it looks like everybody's getting the same thing. But, in fact, what the system is doing is masking over the old inequities. It's not solving the problems of schools that have traditionally not had, you know, good books in a classroom, and not had the highest-educated teachers. It does nothing to remedy the inequities and weaknesses that we have inherited, and instead it gives the appearance that we've somehow solved these, because everybody's being tested the same way.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And she says, the real problem with the accountability system is it forces educators to abandon rich curriculum, and just teach the test to get high scores.

LINDA McNEIL: The predominant word that we get from teachers is they feel this is causing them to have to do less than their best work. They are having to teach a generic set of skills that is not what their kids really need to succeed beyond the TAAS. They are having to water down the content.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Governor Bush strongly disagrees.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I oftentimes say in my state, if you teach the child to read, you don't have to teach the test, because the reading test is a measurement of the capacity to read and comprehend. So teachers shouldn't feel threatened by the Accountability System.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: These three Houston-area high school teachers said they're not threatened by the notion of accountability, but they do worry that putting so much emphasis on one test may not be good for students.

ELIZABETH FLOREANI, High School Teacher: It seems to me that it is the only thing the public sees. And it's the only thing that we are judged by, and I think that's a shame because we do have some wonderful students, and I think the public needs to know about that.

TERRI GOODMAN, High School Teacher: There are other ways to measure. And I think, if you're just relying on one measure, I'm not sure you are really, you know, evaluating the full complexity of students. And I'm not sure many parents want their child in an environment where that's the only measure.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: They also worry that the tests may force kids out of school.

SHEILA WITFORD, High School Teacher: I see too many students dropping out, because they feel like they'll never be able to pass the test. It's a real tragedy. They have dreams too, and we need to somehow help them build the roads to their dreams.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The high dropout rate is one of the biggest black marks in the story of Texas school reform. A U.S. Education Department report shows that since the mid-1980's, the dropout rate has increased by 10%, and about half of black and Hispanic students never graduate. The other troubling issue is how many students actually take the TAAS exam.

GABRIEL VASQUEZ, Houston City Councilman: How are you doing?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Gabriel Vasquez is a Houston city councilman and former school board member. He says for too long schools have been able to exempt students who aren't likely to do well on the TAAS test.

GERALD VASQUEZ: Most districts, only half of their student population actually take TAAS. The reason for that is because, you can be exempted from taking TAAS if you meet certain requirements. Number one is language. Any student that had a problem with speaking English didn't take the TAAS, and they were exempted.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: How was that determined?

GERALD VASQUEZ: It was determined subjectively at the individual school level.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: An examination of Texas education agency documents shows that at least one school did claim exemptions as high as 50% in 1998, but overall statewide that year, exemptions averaged 11%. And, after Governor Bush tightened up exemption rules last year, they averaged 9%. While Governor Bush did not invent the accountability system, supporters of it say that he has done much to further it, by putting in place a number of other measures.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Reading is the basis for all learning, and it must be the foundation for all other education reforms: To succeed in science or math our children have to read; to be able to access the Internet, the children have to read.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: (reading to children) And by the light of the moon.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Three years ago Bush launched a reading program, which shows teachers new ways to teach reading in the early grades.

TEACHER: Show me a capital letter.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: It also requires teachers to assess the reading abilities of every child in kindergarten through third grade, and to hold children back a grade until they have reached a satisfactory reading level.

TEACHER: When I, if all by herself, does she say, "I?"

STUDENTS: (In unison): No.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Although it is too early to tell whether this program has been successful, some critics worry that again, this puts too much emphasis on the testing process.

LINDA McNEIL: There is no one way that children learn to read, so finding the multiple ways of teaching and multiple ways of assessing kids' reading is going to be essential. (Sounds of children reading)

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Worsham kindergarten teacher Sheila Shuman says the 30-minute oral assessment helps both her and the children.

SHEILA SHUMAN, Kindergarten Teacher: It makes the children think. If a child is having problems in that area then I know that I have to work with that child on comprehension. It tests for different sounds, different rhyming words. I see that they... If that particular child needs help in that area, I will work with that child. Another child may have a totally different need, and I will work with that child, and you know, helping that child with his need.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Governor Bush has also increased state spending on education by over 50% to $23 billion a year. And just last year he signed into law a pay raise for Texas teachers, who previously had been some of the lowest-paid in the nation. While the teachers only got $3,000 more per year-- which was half of what they were asking for-- Gayle Fallon, head of the Houston Teachers Union, says she was thrilled.

GAYLE FALLON, Houston Federation of Teachers: All in all it was one of those legislative sessions where we saw the biggest pay raise that had ever gone into the pockets of our teachers -- first increase in retirement. It's a very hard legislative session to criticize. We got a lot of things for the teachers.

CORRESPONDENT: How much credit does the Governor deserve for what was done?

GAYLE FALLON: What we always believe is the Governor gets the credit when we get things, and he gets the blame if we don't, if the pay raise had gone down, it would have been his fault, so we've got to give him credit for it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Darv Winock gives Bush high marks, too.

DARV WINOCK: He has done all of the right things, and they're major. They're major changes in the behavior expected from the system. And I think Texas kids are probably going to set the scores that the nation has to aspire to.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Indeed, Governor Bush campaigns on the theme that Texas should be the model for reform, and that is precisely what worries McNeil.

LINDA McNEIL: I think before any state rushes to emulate Texas, they need to look at what are the experiences of our best teachers who are having the worst time right now -- what are the experiences of our poorest children and now most recently how our middle-class kids suddenly feeling that their richest education is vulnerable under this system. We have many pockets of strength and many extraordinary teachers and principals. Right now they are finding it very hard to do their best work in our public schools.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In spite of such criticism, Governor Bush is expected to continue praising what he calls the Texas miracle, as he keeps education at the forefront of his campaign message.

JIM LEHRER: And we'll look at Vice President Gore's education record tomorrow. Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, patenting human genes, and AIDS in Botswana.

FOCUS - PATENTING GENES

JIM LEHRER: Patents and the human genome, and, to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The race to map the human genome is over. Last week scientists announced that they had a rough draft of all human genes, but now, biotech companies and universities are filing for patent protection on human genes and their functions. They are a biological gold mine that may enable researchers to diagnose diseases and create new drugs. Who can-- and who should-- own the information in a human gene? Have recent changes in patent law brought perplexing new challenges? To discuss the issue, we turn to: Jonathan King, a professor of molecular biology at MIT. He is also on the board of directors for the Council for Responsible Genetics, a public advocacy group on these issues; Randy Scott, president and chief scientific officer of Incyte Genomics, Incorporated; and Rebecca Eisenberg, a professor of law at the University of Michigan who specializes in biotechnology patent law. Professor Eisenberg, what does the law say in black and white about what you need in order to get a patent?

REBECCA EISENBERG: Well, in order to get a patent on any invention, you have to show that you have a new and useful invention that's nonobvious in light of what was known previously. Contrary to many people's belief, the patenting of genes is not really a new area for the patent system. Patenting of genes is at least as old as the biotechnology industry, which isn't all that old, but I suppose it's been going on for 20 years or so. And in the early days, it didn't really provoke much controversy. By now it's pretty well established that if you can show that a DNA sequence is new and useful and nonobvious, you can get a patent on it. The requirement that it be useful sometimes poses a problem in this era of identification of DNA sequences before their function is understood. That's the issue right now that the patent system is trying to work out. But this isn't really a new practice. This is a long-established practice.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let's take a look at that term "nonobvious." When it used to be really hard to sequence a gene, weren't all genes, by definition, nonobvious. And now that machines can do it, aren't they less nonobvious?

REBECCA EISENBERG: That's a really good question. In the early days, the nonobviousness of the gene was... could well be established by the nonobviousness of the method of finding it. But at a certain point, it became a rather trivial matter to find the genes, and the court of appeals for the federal circuit, which decides many questions of patent law on appeal from rejections of patent applications, decided that we shouldn't confuse the nonobviousness of the method of identifying a gene with the nonobviousness of the gene itself. And so if there's nothing in the... in the state of prior knowledge in the field that would suggest the gene itself, the fact that the method by which the gene was found has become routine won't prevent the issuance of a patent on that gene.

RAY SUAREZ: Randy Scott, how many patents does Incyte Genomics have applications out for, and why is it important that you get this patent protection?

RANDY SCOTT: Right. Well, we have now about 500 issued and allowed U.S. patents and about another 7,000 patents filed on genes that we've discovered out of normal and diseased cells and tissues. For us, it's really been the cornerstone of our business, of discovering novel genes, associating them with disease and then providing that information broadly to the pharmaceutical industry, where 18 out of the top 20 major pharmaceutical companies now subscribe to Incyte databases and are actually already covered broadly under no, sir patents. So our feeling is that we're actually helping to enable the industry to have access to that intellectual property and to use that to cure and diagnose disease.

RAY SUAREZ: But in a lot of these cases, you haven't actually done anything to the gene or found a way to do something to the gene -- you've just described it, do I understand this right?

RANDY SCOTT: I think that's a bit of a misnomer. The approach that we plied going back to 1991 was actually starting from normal tissue and diseased tissue so, for example from either prostate cancer and normal prostate tissue and then randomly sequencing large newspaper numbers of genes out of both of those systems but then looking at the systems and trying to identify those genes that were associated where diseased prostate versus normal. So we actually started like any biological experiment. It's just the methodology now is really truly a paradigm shift for the whole field, that we can stand thousands of genes at a time in the search to discover novel genes, and we can now discover and process hundreds of genes that may be specifically associated with prostate tissue or prostate cancer. So simply the volume of information that's now coming out of this genomics revolution I think has really both excited everybody and of course taken some people aback in the speed at which this field is moving.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor King, a lot of the companies involved say, "look, you know, we did the digging. We figured out what was necessary to figure out about these genes. Why shouldn't we have the protection that the patent system has offered inventors for 1200--200 years?"

JONATHAN KING, The Council for Responsible Genetics: Well, you know, one of the major discoveries of modern genetics is that human genes are inherited, they're passed down to us from our parents and from all previous generations. The human genome is the kind of common biological heritage of all human beings, not the property of a corporation or an individual or a scientist. And these genes of course weren't invented by the people who sequence them. The notion that revealing the sequence of a gene should enable you to be granted a patent monopoly on it is like saying that the chemists who determined that graphite is made of lead atoms should get a patent on graphite - or that mapping the bottom of the ocean should allow you to own the ocean bottom. It's really a profoundly flawed notion of transfer of biological comment into private property. In fact the genome... the sequence, which is an extraordinary step forward in, you know, human knowledge and human scientific history, this is the product of 50 years of public investment. So the American taxpayers, who financed this, thousands of scientists worked on this project. They were trained by thousands of scientists. All those people in general were financed by the public through the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy. This is information that is absolutely part of the kind of human commons and really the notion that discovering of product of nature allows you to patent it is a profound kind of misappropriation of the commons.

RAY SUAREZ: But is there the possibility that certain discoveries simply won't be made if there isn't the profit motive to do the kind of expensive up-front work we're talking about?

JONATHAN KING: No. No. All of the major breakthroughs that enabled the genome to be sequenced, all of the wonderful discoveries of biotechnology and genetic engineering were developed by scientists working as public servants. They were motivated by the desire to kind of improve human welfare, to get credit for it. But they didn't do it for profit. The notion... the reason there was a race around the Human Genome project is there were thousands and thousands of scientists who were working very hard and very energetically to share this information with the public, to make it freely available. Cellera had a business plan that said, "all right, we're going to privatize this information. If we get the see sequences first, we'll try patent claims on it and then we'll sell back to the public what the public itself originally financed." It's really a profound misuse of the patent system and the congress ought to act and say no patents on human genes.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Eisenberg, you've been able to patent living things for, what, about 20 years out?

REBECCA EISENBERG: Yes.

RAY SUAREZ: Is this a big change in patent law, the difference between a development and simply finding something and mapping it or identifying it?

REBECCA EISENBERG: Well, you can't patent something that... If you simply find something in nature and describe it, that's not a sufficient... You won't be able to get a pat enter on that thing as such. In order to get a patent, you have to claim the invention in a form that is distinct from what exists in nature. And that's been the way these patents on DNA sequences have been issued. They've claimed, you know, isolated and purified DNA sequences that are apart from the chromosomes in which they reside in nature. They've claimed genes that have been spliced into bacteria so that they can be used by a biotechnology firm to produce large quantities of a protein that, in nature, is made in smaller quantities by cells using their own DNA. If you were to claim a gene in a form that's infringed by ourselves doing cells doing what they've been doing for generations, that would be an invalid patent. But that's not what's going on.

RAY SUAREZ: Haven't there been cases, though, of companies sort of putting down markers where they aren't quite sure what a gene does, but they patent the sequence and subsequently it's found that they do something quite else or provide some other road but it's walled off now - you have to pay them in order to continue your research.

REBECCA EISENBERG: That's a very serious concern, that you can get a patent issued before you really know what it is that you're holding. And that raises the possibility that a patent will be held by someone who's done... who happens to have been first to identify a sequence and that that's going to cut into the future prospect of...... future researchers that have done more substantial work in order to actually understand the role of that particular gene in a disease pathway and figure out some sort of a therapeutic intervention that's possible. So I think what's new maybe is that we've seen the industry move further upstream in the course of research and product development to the point that now you're seeing a lot of patent applications being filed on discoveries that are primarily valuable as inputs into further research, rather than as products themselves. The first generation of gene patents were issued on genes that provided the blueprint for therapeutic proteins and a patent on the gene looked pretty close to a patent on a drug. Now what we're seeing is patents on thousands of genes, where the primary value of knowing what these genes are is that it gives you a resource for further research, for future discovery. And that raises a very real concern about how those discoveries are going to be licensed. Randy Scott described Incyte's strategy of not exclusively licensing genes very broadly. I think when that happens, it's a lot less worrisome than when you see companies trying to exploit the genes that they've identified on an exclusive basis and not making them available to other researchers. But I think we still have to worry about access by researchers who were not working in industry, who are working for universities perhaps. I know here at the University of Michigan, we're preparing to launch with a major life sciences initiative, a lot of universities are interested in exploring the tremendous potential of the genome, and are worried that a proliferation of patents in the hands of different owners might complicate the task of gathering the necessary licenses.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me quickly go to Randy Scott. I want to finish up with Randy Scott. Just to see whether, in your view, there needs to be some refinements to the pat enter law in order to wrap their arms around this new world where you can file phone book-sized applications and sort of put a brick on something while you're still figuring it out.

RANDY SCOTT: Right. I think in our view, the U.S. Patent Office has actually done a very add admirable job at sort of looking at the technology, looking at the state-of-the-art and adapting to that. One of the primary uses for genes these days is in diagnosis of finding genes as markers. One of the best known markers of all time, prostate-specifically antigen, or PSA is now the primary test for prostate cancer, and people don't really need to understand much about what that gene does functionally in the body, but when it shows up in the bloodstream, it's a good sign that prostate cancer has begun its course. And sothat's a great marker. A lot of this race is really about identifying new diagnostics, new therapeutics, and I think Rebecca raises some great points. You can't patent a gene as it exists in nature, so there's no danger that we can patent a gene as it's walking around in a person. In fact, you can only get it in a commercially viable form as it's useful for diagnostics and therapeutics. And historically in our industry, having a patent has actually meant that most holders of patents would encourage people to do basic research -

RAY SUAREZ: Randy Scott, I'm going to have to end it there.

RANDY SCOTT: Okay.

RAY SUAREZ: Thank you very much, all.

FINALLY - AIDS IN BOTSWANA

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, AIDS in Africa. There will be much discussion next week at a major conference next week in South Africa. We have a report from a nation with one of the highest HIV/AIDS rates in the world, Botswana. The reporter is Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News. (Singing)

LINDSEY HILSUM: This is a country where the old bury the young. Two decades ago, Pule funeral parlor dealt with three or four deaths a week. Now it's 20 or more, sons and daughters. AIDS has seeped through Botswana like a poison. It started in the towns, but now it's everywhere; in the rural areas, in the country's biggest village, Molepolole. Here in the graveyard at Molepolole, I can see headstones of people who born in the 60's and 70's, and new, unmarked graves. I'm told there were dozens of funerals here every weekend. Botswana had such high hopes. The government was going to spend its diamond revenues on ending poverty and developing the rural areas. But now, it's going to have to devote more and more of its budget to hospitals and medicines. The people, meanwhile, spend their money on funerals and tombstones. AIDS is making everyone poorer. Its changed everything.

PRESIDENT FESTUS MOGAE, Botswana: It permeates all our society and everything we do, and therefore, it has to be and it is our preoccupation. It cuts across our efforts in fighting poverty, in stimulating growth, and therefore, it tends to reverse the gains we had made. And therefore, it has to be priority, number one.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Botswana is the world's largest diamond producer. It has the fastest growing economy in Africa. At this diamond cutting plant in Molepolole, ten workers have died of AIDS-related illnesses in the last 18 months. There are plenty more to fill the gap. But employers are beginning to ask, "it is worth training workers who fall ill and die?" The government's considering compulsory AIDS tests for those going on scholarship to study abroad.

PRESIDENT FESTUS MOGAE: Just the other day, we have had to charter a plane from the United States to bring two ill students. We could have built a country primary school with the cost of the charter.

LINDSEY HILSUM: This is what it's like to be poor and live with AIDS in Botswana today. Kezrome Tshipana earns a little from hairdressing for the neighbors, but she and her mother are both sick and can no longer support the children. The day we visited, they had nothing to eat. And they don't understand the concept of HIV/AIDS. It's alien to their way of thinking, their culture.

KEAAROMA TSHIPANA, Daughter: (Translated): I know AIDS exists, but I'm confused because I go to a spiritual healing church, and there they say it's witchcraft. The priest told me that at hospital they will say it's HIV/AIDS, but in fact it's just that those who bewitched me have made it look like AIDS. So it's not that I don't believe it, but this has beendone to me to look like AIDS.

DIRANG RAPULA, Mother: (Translated) The traditional doctor helped me. He said it was witchcraft. Straight away he gave me medicine, and immediately I felt better.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The family are helped by a social worker and volunteer carers. The government nurse organizes the volunteers who look after AIDS patients in their homes. The hospital's full. For every one that dies, another two fall sick. Living through this epidemic takes its toll even on those whose job it is to care.

OLEBOGENG TSEDI, Government Nurse: Sometimes you need somebody to talk to, to laugh at. But when you're alone in a house staying far away from your family, what do you do? You sit and cry. For who? For somebody you have seen outside who is sick, or somebody who is suffering, but you can't do anything. You try to help, but at the end of the day...

LINDSEY HILSUM: But on Saturday night in the capital, Gaborone, AIDS seems to be the last thing on anyone's mind. The government message is: Abstain from sex, stick to one partner, use a condom. The truth is dawning slowly. Whatever they do, one-third of young people are going to die. Those who are not infected will survive only if they change their sexual behavior now. AIDS will not wait.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday: Israel and the Palestinians tried to lower expectations for next week's summit outside Washington; and Yugoslavia's parliament took action to keep President Milosevic in power. It amended the constitution to let him run for another four- year term next year. We'll see you on-line, and again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and David Brooks, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.