[foxyv]

Schools have always been a constitutional red zone. Unwarranted searches, surveillance, seizures, and prior restraint. The claim is that they are in loco parentis of the children and have nearly unlimited power over the kids unless they have parents that will advocate for them. Children's rights have always been a very contentious topic.

[AinderS]

But now the searches are extended into homes. I'm sure schools will argue that the laptops are school property and therefore children (or parents) have no rights on them, but let's think through what is happening here. I hate to use libertarian phrasing, but it will paint the clearest picture:

The state takes money from parents. Money the parents now can't use to buy laptops for their children. Instead, the state buys the laptops, but now families have no rights on the laptops their money bought.

[foxyv]

> The state takes money from parents. Money the parents now can't use to buy laptops for their children.

Not just parents, in fact, but everyone pays for those laptops. This is including people without children and federal funding which is paid for by everyone in the USA. (Except billionaires apparently) The state is just the people in this case.

> But now the searches are extended into homes.

Yes, and the parents would have a 4th amendment right here against unreasonable search and seizure, but the children will not because of the way the law views children as under the custody of their guardians and people entrusted by their guardians to care for them. At home, if a child is attending school virtually, the school may have custody of the child at that point. A child has similar legal rights to a prisoner in a jail.

However, the custody of a child that is being taught remotely could be a source of contention. Especially if a parent is present.