What was striking about following the GOP presidential candidates around New Hampshire earlier this month was how education barely gets talked about on the stump or in debates.

Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum. Jon Huntsman. I saw them twice in rallies. Nothing came up. Newt Gingrich? I saw him once. Nothing from him, either. Nor was education an issue during the New Hampshire debates.

The only mention of schools came when Santorum charged President Barack Obama with being an elitist because he said the nation needs to get all kids ready for college. Santorum told a crowd gathered around a frozen lake that he would be fine if his son became a darn good mechanic.

The Pennsylvanian is right: All labor — of the legal kind, that is — has dignity.

But hasn’t he seen the numbers about how few American kids really are prepared for college? In Texas, fewer than a third of students are on a track that readies them. In Dallas, it’s common to find fewer than 20 percent of a traditional high school’s students equipped for college.

It isn’t like most students are heading for college and those pursuing a technical or trade job are being shunned. The fact is that our schools are producing more kids for trade and technical jobs than those who require a college degree. If not reversed, that trend will limit our economy’s potential.

And what about the data that shows college degrees offer greater economic mobility for young Americans? Doesn’t Santorum think a degree would help the children of the working families he rightly champions?

To be fair, the Republicans talk some about education on their websites. But, generally, public schools are not coming up much. Romney even spoke at two high schools right before the primary, but there was no talk about school reform.

This differs from the campaign that George W. Bush ran in 2000 and Barack Obama, for the most part, waged in 2008. Both candidates largely laid the predicate for the education programs they would pursue as president.

The lack of talk about education is worrisome for several reasons.

First, education is largely a state function, but the feds do have a say in the matter. No Child Left Behind. Race to the Top. Pell grants. Each of those is a part of the federal portfolio. It would be nice to hear more about what the candidates would do with these programs.

Second, the goal of getting education right in big urban school districts remains elusive. In major cities such as Dallas, districts struggle to “scale up” basics that would help all their schools, not just the top ones. Quality principals. Teacher-leaders. Access to real-time data. Strong middle schools. They often are in short supply. How would the candidates work with states and districts to broaden their repertoire of strong campuses?

Third, the quality of public schools determines how well the country will assimilate its many immigrant families. That’s especially so in states such as Texas and California with their large Latino populations.

The candidates eagerly put an exclamation point behind their ideas to toughen up border security. But what about explaining how important it is for schools to help immigrant students move out of a parallel universe and learn English, master civics and become proficient in math and science? And how mastery of those subjects is the way immigrant children can become the leaders of our communities, companies and universities?

Fourth, the capabilities of our K-16 system will determine whether America will remain the driving force for innovation. We can talk all we want about juicing up the economy, but we can’t sustain economic growth without schools producing enough skilled workers.

I love the excitement of campaigns as much as the next person. But surely these issues are worth having a conversation about on the stump, if we think developing human capital is important.

William McKenzie is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News.