Update: Salamanca Robot Teacher Plan Paused Over Privacy Concerns
Days after the ambitious classroom experiment drew attention, the district halted its rollout while officials strengthen student-data protections.
UPDATE — July 25, 2026: The Salamanca robot teacher project has been placed on hold following concerns from New York education officials, teachers and community members about student privacy and the use of lifelike artificial intelligence in public schools.
The decision marks a significant turn since the Utica Phoenix first reported on Salamanca City Central School District’s plan to introduce “Sally,” an AI-powered humanoid robot, during the 2026–27 school year.
Readers can review our original report, “New York School District Begins Bold Humanoid Robot Classroom Test,” for a detailed look at the technology, its proposed educational uses and the questions surrounding privacy, equity and human interaction.
At the time, district officials described Sally as a supervised classroom assistant that would support teachers—not replace them. The district has now delayed the program while it works with the New York State Education Department on stronger student-data protections and seeks additional community input.
What changed since the first report?
Salamanca announced the pause July 24, hours after state Education Commissioner Betty Rosa sent a letter to Superintendent Mark Beehler expressing concerns about the proposed program.
According to New York Focus, the district said the Realbotix project would remain on hold while officials work through “enhanced student data privacy agreements” with the State Education Department and continue discussions with community members and other stakeholders.
The announcement does not necessarily mean the program has been canceled. It does mean Sally will not enter the classroom on the original schedule unless the district resolves the state’s concerns.
Rosa wrote that the department remained concerned about “the effect that a humanoid robot may have within a high school classroom.”
“Many parents, teachers, and stakeholders are understandably concerned about the presence of artificial intelligence technology in classrooms, particularly when it involves robots that resemble humans,” Rosa wrote.
The state said it would continue monitoring the proposal for possible privacy violations, legal complications, safety risks and other unintended consequences.
What Salamanca originally planned
As explained in the Utica Phoenix’s initial coverage, Salamanca planned to introduce Sally to a small group of high school students studying science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics.
The district approved a $57,590 investment for the Realbotix robot and a related AI teaching-assistant system.
Sally was being designed as a stationary, female-presenting robot with silicone skin, long brown hair, movable arms and changing facial expressions. Although the robot would remain seated, students could reportedly speak with it and receive assistance with district-approved lessons.
The package also included a digital version of Sally that students could access through computers. According to information provided by the company, students would have been able to:
- Ask questions about assignments
- Upload photographs of homework for feedback
- Receive personalized academic assistance
- Obtain real-time translation in more than 100 languages
- Continue earlier conversations with the system
Students would use unique identification codes when interacting with Sally. Those codes would allow the system to connect classroom conversations with earlier exchanges involving its digital avatar.
That continuity was presented as a way to personalize academic assistance. It also raised an important question: How can a system remember a student’s history without collecting or maintaining information that could identify that student?
Privacy promises require written protections
District officials previously said the Realbotix system would operate on a closed network, would not use facial recognition and would not provide the company with personally identifiable student information.
Those safeguards sound reassuring. However, the state’s intervention shows why promises must be supported by clear and enforceable agreements.
Before Sally—or any similar AI system—interacts with children, families deserve specific answers:
- What information will be connected to each student identification code?
- Will conversations, assignments or homework photographs be stored?
- How long will student interactions remain in the system?
- Who will be permitted to view or download the information?
- Can Realbotix use student interactions to improve its technology?
- How will inaccurate, biased or inappropriate responses be reported?
- Can families decline participation without affecting a student’s grade?
- Who will be responsible if private information is exposed?
These are not arguments against innovation. They are basic protections for children whose information may be processed by a new and largely untested classroom system.
District says Sally would not replace teachers
Beehler has repeatedly said the Salamanca robot teacher was intended to support educators, not eliminate teaching positions.
“We truly believe in the importance of human-to-human interaction,” Beehler said before the pause. “It is not going to replace teachers.”
That distinction remains important. Teachers do far more than deliver information. They recognize when students are confused, discouraged or experiencing personal problems. They motivate children, manage conflict and build trust over time.
A robot may translate instructions or provide extra practice. It cannot assume the full academic, social and emotional responsibilities of a trained educator.
Realbotix CEO Andrew Kiguel said the company respects Salamanca’s decision to conduct further review.
“We fully respect any decision the school makes and encourage thorough due diligence by all parties involved,” Kiguel told New York Focus.
“We want the program to be demonstrably safe, fully district-approved, and strongly supported by teachers,” he added. “We stand firmly behind [the program] as a supportive tool designed to assist teachers and students, not replace them.”
Teachers union strongly opposes the proposal
New York State United Teachers has taken a much harder position.
NYSUT President Melinda Person argued that children need meaningful relationships with educators rather than machines designed to imitate human appearance and conversation.
“Educators notice when students are struggling, celebrate when they succeed and help them discover who they can become,” Person said. “No robot can do that, no matter how lifelike its skin or specific its regional accent.”
The union also raised concerns about screen time, student privacy and Realbotix’s corporate history.
Realbotix, formerly known as Tokens.com, acquired Simulacra—the parent company associated with the adult-oriented RealDoll business—in 2024. Realbotix has said Sally is a newly manufactured educational product and is not modified or repurposed adult equipment.
The corporate connection has understandably attracted attention. Still, the public-policy review should remain centered on the product that would enter the school: how it operates, what it collects, whether it is safe and whether it provides measurable educational value.
Rural students deserve innovation—and protection
Salamanca officials presented the project partly as an equity initiative.
Rural districts often lack access to specialized courses, advanced technology and enrichment programs available in wealthier communities. An AI assistant could potentially help students receive additional tutoring, explore robotics or practice emerging workplace skills.
Beehler has also argued that schools should teach students to use artificial intelligence responsibly instead of simply banning it.
That argument has merit. Students will encounter AI in college, employment and everyday life. They need to understand how automated systems work, why they make mistakes and how personal information may be collected.
But equal access to technology must include equal protection from its risks.
Rural students should not become testing subjects for experimental products simply because companies and school officials view their communities as promising places to try something new. They deserve the same independent evaluation, transparency and privacy safeguards expected in any other district.
What happens next?
The Salamanca robot teacher program could move forward if the district reaches an acceptable privacy agreement with the State Education Department and earns stronger community support.
Before restarting the program, the district should publicly provide:
- Its final student-data privacy agreement
- A clear parental notification and consent process
- Rules governing storage and deletion of student interactions
- Independent security and privacy testing
- Procedures for reporting inaccurate or harmful responses
- Measurable educational goals for the pilot
- Regular public reports on costs, use and student outcomes
- A comparison with less expensive educational alternatives
Those alternatives could include additional tutors, teaching assistants, after-school programs or conventional learning software. A fair review should determine whether the humanoid form adds educational value or merely makes the technology more visually impressive.
A necessary pause in a statewide debate
The decision to pause Sally’s rollout is not a rejection of all classroom technology. It is an acknowledgment that public trust must be earned before an experimental system begins interacting with students.
Salamanca’s proposal is also larger than one robot. School districts across New York will soon face sales pitches for AI tutors, digital assistants and personalized learning platforms.
State leaders should use this case to develop clear statewide rules requiring parental notice, teacher participation, independent privacy reviews and public disclosure of AI contracts.
The Utica Phoenix’s original report concluded that the rest of New York should watch Salamanca closely. That remains true. The first major lesson has already emerged: responsible innovation requires more than enthusiasm. It requires evidence, transparency and meaningful community consent.
Parents, teachers and students should participate in the district’s continuing review. The final decision could influence how artificial intelligence enters classrooms across New York—and whether it supports education without weakening the human relationships at its heart.
