> been shown to be constitutional in appellate courts.

So has civil asset forfeiture but that doesn't actually make it constitutional.

When a agent of the government wants to search mine or the property of my child, I'm going to make them get a warrant every time. I have nothing to hide, but it's not worth the risk of something being misunderstood or misinterpreted and ending up with consequences from this fishing expedition. They can "particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" along with their probable cause on the outset or not search at all. Terrorism isn't a sufficient reason to throw out the constitution, it's laughable to suggest name calling is.

My kid isn't old enough yet but stuff like this, monitoring software on laptop used for school (but purchased by parents) pushes me towards homeschooling.

So that isn't what the document says. Out of 5 cases, only two were constitutional. Both of those were allowed to confirm that a disallowed activity had happened during school.

Specifically in Mendoza vs Klein ISD (from the paper) we see that the continued search of the phone after confirmation of texting in class was ruled unconstitutional.

There's a key word.

"My"

As in not the student.

MY phone.

Whether or not they have it is no excuse. It is MY device. MY rights have been firmly established.