Like others have said, I have mixed feelings about this. First, the student's argument is framed by a perceived violation of constitutional rights. Which right is being violated? There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy. The fourteenth amendment's liberty clause has been used to argue that generalized privacy issues are covered by the constitution but this is not universally accepted jurisprudence.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html Secondly, the student refuses to wear a RFID-less ID card even though her primary complaint centered on the tracking capabilities of the RFID-equipped ID. Her argument for this behavior makes no sense to me... wearing the chipless ID is an implicit endorsement of the tracking technology? She had no problem wearing an earlier version ID card and even tried to use the old card during a school activity. So an old chipless ID is OK but a new chipless ID is not OK? I don't see the logic here.
The school district has a serious attendance problem and they are trying to use technology to solve the problem. Kids actually IN the classroom does mean more dollars for the district but it also means that the kids have a better chance of accomplishing what they're supposed to be doing anyway - learning something. It also means they're not contributing to crime in the community. Would tracking the kids beyond the boundaries of the school property be appropriate? Of course not. And THERE is my problem with this whole project... is the issue one of losing kids after they're on campus or is the issue getting them to campus in the first place? RFID tracking while on campus will do nothing to get them to school to begin with.