A small school district in upstate New York recently paused plans to introduce a humanoid robot teacher after parents and staff discovered more about the company behind it. Salamanca City Central School District had budgeted nearly $60,000 for a robot called “Sally,” but the rollout is now on hold amid public concern.
This story goes beyond a high-tech classroom gadget. Public funds were used to purchase Sally, and the robot was slated for use in a local high school. Once community members learned more about the manufacturer, the district faced difficult questions about whether introducing this technology into classrooms was appropriate and which protections would be in place for students.
Sally was acquired from a company called Realbotix, which also offers an AI teaching-assistant program intended for student use on laptops. The district approved the purchase last month, describing the robot as an educational tool to support lessons in robotics and technology—not as a substitute for human teachers. School leaders emphasized that the device was meant to provide hands-on learning opportunities for students interested in engineering and artificial intelligence.
Controversy arose when the company’s connections were reported in the local press. Realbotix is affiliated with a sister company, Intima, which has ties to RealDoll, a manufacturer known for producing adult products. Company representatives have stated that the businesses operate independently, with separate staff and manufacturing processes, and that the robot model intended for schools is a new unit designed specifically for educational settings. Nevertheless, once the connection became public, concern spread quickly among parents and community members.
Why parents pushed back
The state teachers union publicly opposed the plan, with leaders arguing that a robot tied to a company associated with adult products was inappropriate for classrooms. Parents and local residents voiced similar objections and raised additional concerns about privacy and data security. Many wanted clarification about what student data the robot or its AI assistant might collect, how that data would be stored, and who would ultimately have access to it.
In response, district officials said Sally would not record audio or video of student interactions and that the robot would not transmit information back to the manufacturer. Despite those assurances, community members and union representatives said they needed stronger, legally binding guarantees before they would accept the device in classrooms. The district acknowledged that more robust student-data privacy agreements were necessary to move forward.
What happens next
Salamanca announced the pause in a public statement, noting the district will work with state officials to establish stricter student data privacy protections and clearer contractual terms before reconsidering the purchase. No new timeline has been provided. Broader national conversations about robotics and data privacy are also playing a role: government agencies and school systems across the country are increasingly scrutinizing devices that handle student information or incorporate remote connectivity.
For now, Sally will remain out of the classroom while district leaders consult legal counsel, privacy experts, and state regulators to determine the appropriate next steps. Administrators say they want to ensure any technology brought into schools protects student privacy, complies with applicable laws and policies, and has transparent oversight. Community members have urged the district to prioritize open communication and to publish clear safeguards before any reintroduction of similar devices.
This episode highlights the growing tensions school districts face as they attempt to balance educational innovation with responsible stewardship of public funds and protection of student privacy. As schools evaluate new educational technologies, districts will likely see more demand from parents and educators for detailed disclosures about manufacturers, data practices, and the specific educational benefits of those tools. In Salamanca, the pause gives the district time to address those concerns and ensure that any future technology deployments align with community expectations and legal requirements.