But Buchanan would be even worse, the scholars say. Because he advocates a minimist federal role, Buchanan would almost certainly reduce federal funding for schools.

"I have absolutely no idea what [Buchanan] wishes to do on education--and I would suspect that he has none as well," says Murphy.

Neither Brown nor Buchanan are "education presidents," says Orfield. "Neither of them has run a coherent campaign. So far, they are just full of slogans," he says.

SEVERAL IMPORTANT education issues are not being discussed and examined thoroughly enough this year, professors say.

Glazer points out that too many candidates and interest groups are simply calling for more money.

"The easiest thing to say is, `We need more money,'" says Glazer. But education as a whole, he says, has sufficient funding. The focus needs to shift from how much money is spent toward how that money is spent, he argues.

Different professors point to different programs. Financial aid programs, Head Start, school choice and programs designed to assist economically disadvantaged children are mentioned regularly.

Setting national standards and the quality of teachers is a concern of a number of professors, as is the touchy subject of school desegregation and the debate over whether resources should go to the poor or the middle class.

But some professors emphasize that "the education deficit" is only a symptom of a greater social problem.

"It is not as simple as this: if you fix the schools, you will fix the kids," says Howe.

"If a child does not live in a decent house, have enough to eat, have sufficient parental support, regardless of how good the school is, he will do badly," he says.