New York School Pauses $60,000 AI Robot Teacher After Backlash

A rural New York school district wanted to give students a front-row seat to the future of education.

Instead, it found itself at the center of a debate involving artificial intelligence, student privacy, human teachers and — unexpectedly — sex robots.

The Salamanca City Central School District has paused plans to introduce a lifelike, AI-powered robot into its high school after parents, educators and New York education officials raised serious concerns.

The stationary humanoid robot, nicknamed “Sally,” has long dark hair, realistic facial features and movable arms and hands. Its legs do not work, so Sally would remain in one location rather than walk through the hallways.

District leaders approved the purchase for nearly $60,000. They planned to use Sally alongside students studying robotics, artificial intelligence, coding and other STEAM-related subjects.

However, the futuristic classroom experiment quickly became far more controversial than administrators expected.

What Was Sally Supposed to Do?

Despite headlines describing Sally as an “AI teacher,” district officials insist the robot was never supposed to replace a classroom educator.

Instead, Sally would serve as an interactive technology and tutoring platform.

A student struggling to program an Arduino board, for example, could ask Sally for an explanation. Students could also study the robot itself, including how technicians maintain it, update its approved educational material and troubleshoot technical problems.

The district originally described the program as a way to support its existing Woz Ed STEAM curriculum. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak helped develop that educational program.

Salamanca officials said the robot would encourage students to think through problems rather than simply hand them answers. The district planned to limit the pilot to a small number of high school students and staff members.

For a rural district near the Pennsylvania border, access played a major role in the decision.

Superintendent Mark Beehler said local students often need to travel one or two hours to experience emerging technology. Bringing a humanoid robot into the school, he argued, could expose students to careers in AI, engineering and robotics without requiring them to leave the community.

That goal sounds reasonable.

The robot’s corporate family tree, however, created a public relations nightmare.

The Sex-Robot Connection Sparked Outrage

Realbotix developed Sally as an educational robot. The company says it also creates humanoid machines for healthcare, entertainment and other commercial uses.

However, a separate sister company has an ownership interest in RealDoll, a manufacturer known for creating hyper-realistic adult dolls and AI-powered sex robots.

That connection immediately alarmed teachers and community members.

“A robot built by a company associated with sex dolls has no business in our classrooms,” New York State United Teachers President Melinda Person said in a public statement.

Person argued that students need meaningful relationships with caring adults, not increasingly lifelike machines. The union also warned that classroom AI systems could represent an early step toward reducing or replacing human education jobs.

Realbotix pushed back against claims that Sally was a repurposed adult product.

The company said the educational robot was newly manufactured and designed specifically for school use. It also said Realbotix and the adult-products company maintain separate employees, management teams, facilities and product-development operations.

Still, the association proved difficult for many parents and teachers to overlook.

Student Privacy Became an Even Bigger Concern

Beyond the robot’s appearance and corporate connections, critics wanted to know exactly what Sally could hear, record and remember.

Could the robot save student conversations?

Would it recognize faces?

Could it send information to the manufacturer?

Would it create profiles based on individual students’ questions or behavior?

Those concerns eventually caught the attention of New York State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa.

Although the district said Sally would not deliver classroom instruction, Rosa noted that school officials had also described it as a tutoring platform. That distinction raised questions about how much influence the robot could have over students and whether the program complied with state education and privacy requirements.

The district now says the pilot will remain on hold while it works with state officials on stronger student-data privacy agreements and continues speaking with teachers, parents and residents.

The District Says Sally Would Operate Offline

Salamanca school leaders have offered several assurances about the technology.

According to the district, Sally would not record audio or video. It would not collect students’ personal information or send classroom data back to Realbotix.

The robot would also operate on a closed system. It would not freely search the public internet or use answers pulled from unapproved generative AI platforms.

Instead, school-approved information would remain stored locally.

Officials said Sally had also been programmed to avoid conversations involving sex, violence, gambling and other inappropriate subjects.

Realbotix added that student authentication would run through the district’s existing systems. Any student-linked data would reportedly remain encrypted and under the school district’s control.

Those protections may sound reassuring. However, critics argue that schools should establish firm rules before placing humanlike AI machines in front of children — not after a purchase has already been approved.

Is This Innovation or an Expensive Distraction?

The controversy surrounding Sally raises a larger question facing schools across America.

How should educators introduce students to powerful new technology without allowing that technology to weaken human relationships?

There is real value in giving students hands-on experience with artificial intelligence and robotics. Those fields will influence nearly every major industry, from medicine and transportation to entertainment and national security.

A robot can also make a technology lesson feel far more exciting than another worksheet or slideshow.

Yet there is a major difference between teaching students about AI and placing an AI-powered humanoid in a role that feels like a teacher, tutor or trusted adult.

Young people may give extra credibility to a machine that speaks confidently and looks human. Research involving high school students has found that social robots can strongly influence students’ answers, including when the robot provides incorrect information.

That makes transparency, supervision and clearly defined boundaries essential.

Students Still Need Humans

Beehler has repeatedly said Salamanca has no intention of replacing teachers.

“There is no possible way a robot can replace a human in a school,” he told reporters, adding that teaching remains a human-to-human process.

On that point, both supporters and critics may actually agree.

Sally could potentially become an interesting piece of laboratory equipment. Students could study how it works, question its responses and learn about the ethical risks surrounding artificial intelligence.

But the moment the robot begins acting like a teacher, counselor or trusted authority figure, the experiment becomes much more complicated.

A machine can explain code.

It can retrieve approved information.

It might even generate excitement around science and engineering.

What it cannot do is truly understand when a student feels afraid, isolated, frustrated or inspired. It cannot replace the judgment, compassion and accountability of a caring educator.

For now, Sally will remain on pause.

That may be the smartest lesson the robot has delivered so far: just because technology can enter the classroom does not mean schools should rush to plug it in.

Sources: NPR and The Associated Press reporting published July 29, 2026; Salamanca City Central School District; New York State United Teachers; New York State Education Department; Realbotix.