Here's a thought for you. The government can't take away our rights, but they can make us go to school, and the school can take away our rights. So isn't the government indirectly taking away our rights by making us go to school? How can that be legal?

Isn't there a law that states after a person has turned 16, they are no longer legally required to attend school? :huh:

That's true, I know I feel a lot better about school when I think "you know, I'm here because I want to be," but what about before you're 16?

This is a different question, but it applies to the question posed in the original post...
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_151.html
The important part being "The constitutional safeguards against search and seizure apply only to the government, not to private parties". While a school isn't your average "private party", it isn't a government agency. The gist of the answer is that by entering a school, you're essentially entering into a contract with the administration to abide by the rules. You probably actually signed a contract agreeing to abide by the rules and allowing that they may be enforced by whatever means at the beginning of the school year- my school has you sign the handbook at registration. In doing so, you've signed off your "rights" (whichever you feel are being infringed upon by the school) in the interest of a "safe", rule-driven schooling experience.
The issue gets sticky with truancy laws- you are required by law to go to school if you're able until you're 16. One could make the argument that the government is using its police power to force someone to go to school to have their rights stripped away. It would be a good argument, but another person would say that you have the choice of home schooling if you feel your rights are being infringed upon too much. However, even home schooling is (very loosely, non-uniformly) regulated by the government, so who knows? You may have a case.

That's interesting that your school actually has you sign a contract. The home-schooling is a good point, but not everybody can afford the luxury of home-schooling. I'm sure the child of a single parent couldn't be home-schooled, so they would have to go to a regular school. Wouldn't you therefore be discriminating against those that can't afford the luxury for whatever reason?

Well, actually, minors don't really have any rights, so they're not taking any away <_<

It's not that minors don't have rights -- they do -- but their rights must still be upheld by the law -- which treats minors differently. In a very technical, ideal sense, all citizens have the same rights, it's just a question of ability, in both the eyes of the law and just practically speaking, to exercise said rights.

As a teacher....we are Parents in Absentia.

When you're at school and you're a minor, we are expected to act as parents. Sending you to your room without a trial or not allowing you to listen to specific music isn't a violation of your rights at home. Searching your closet isn't a violation of your rights. As "parents" at school, we do the same things.