To: Commissioner Betty A. Rosa, New York State Education Department; Chancellor Lester W. Young, Jr., and the Members of the New York State Board of Regents
Governor Kathy Hochul; New York State Legislators
July 26, 2026
Dear Commissioner Rosa, Chancellor Young, and Members of the Board of Regents:
First, we write to say thank you.
When the Salamanca City Central School District’s plan to seat “Sally” — a silicone-skinned, humanoid, AI-powered robot — in a high school classroom became public this month, parents and educators raised their voices. The Department engaged quickly, met with the district and put its concerns in writing. Within hours of Commissioner Rosa’s July 24 letter, the district announced it was putting the project on hold. That is what community voice and public oversight are supposed to look like, and we are grateful to everyone who acted.
But what stopped this robot was not a law. It was not a regulation. It was not any policy of the State of New York, because no such policy exists. It was an investigative news story, the parents and educators who read it, and a Commissioner’s letter. Had those pieces not fallen into place, “Sally” would be seated in front of students this September and nothing on the books would have required a single question to be asked first.
Note, too, what the district’s pause is scoped to: “enhanced student data privacy agreements.” While privacy is an essential consideration, it was never the whole problem. Privacy paperwork cannot tell us whether a machine engineered to mimic a human being belongs in front of children at all.
This will happen again. The vendor in this case has said so itself. Realbotix calls Salamanca its “flagship deployment” and describes it as the start of “a new era” in which humanoid robots become “standard tools” in America’s classrooms. It seems certain that the next sales pitch has already been made. The only question is whether the next district will have an investigative reporter, an organized community and a Commissioner and a union paying close enough attention.
Below you’ll find some of the questions Salamanca’s parents and educators would have asked, had anyone thought to include them before the purchase order was signed. Welcome as the pause is, it has not answered these questions.
On the process and management of this robot program:
- Realbotix markets its product as an “AI-powered teacher’s assistant.” In New York, teaching assistant is a certified title held by trained human professionals who are fingerprinted, background-checked and trained under the Dignity for All Students Act. What certificate does “Sally” hold? Which office processed her fingerprint clearance? And if she witnesses something a mandated reporter must report, is she programmed to report it, or to redirect the conversation back to approved content?
- Students would log in with unique identification codes so the robot could access their learning data and recall their previous conversations. Realbotix says it will receive no personally identifiable information — but in a school this small, how does an ID code tied to a student’s conversations avoid becoming exactly that?
- The district is now, commendably, working through enhanced data privacy agreements with the Department. But a signed agreement under Education Law §2-d is where scrutiny begins, not where it ends. Who has independently verified that no data leaves campus? How long are records of students’ conversations retained, and who is permitted to read them?
- What are Realbotix’s data-breach notification protocols? Is the district contractually entitled to immediate disclosure?
- Does the “closed system” mean fully “air-gapped” from the internet, or simply that it does not interact with Realbotix’s servers in real time? If a parent requests their child’s conversations be deleted, is there a timely mechanism to do so?
- Who decides what counts as a “flagged term” for self-harm or bullying, and what happens if a struggling student doesn’t use that exact terminology? When a term is flagged, what exactly happens next? Who is notified, who calls the parents, or is it simply logged?
- In 2023, your Department wisely determined that facial recognition technology is prohibited in New York schools. The vendor said the facial recognition and recording features found in its other robots would simply be left off this one. Has anyone verified this claim? Does “the vendor promised” fit the Department’s compliance standards?
- If “Sally” were to “hallucinate,” give a student wrong information, or say something inappropriate, who is accountable: the district, the company, or the robot? Will she be placed on a teacher improvement plan?
- Has Realbotix actually gone through independent certification (ISO 42001, FedRAMP Moderate), or is “extensive safety guardrails” just marketing language self-reported by the CEO?
On our students:
- This year, the New York State Legislature passed bill S9051-B — by a vote of 60–0 in the Senate, with Salamanca’s own state senator voting yes — that would prohibit providing minors with unsafe AI companion features, including pretending to be human or to feel emotions, presenting itself in a personal or authority-figure role and drawing on what a child said in previous sessions. That bill now awaits the Governor’s signature and, if signed, takes effect January 1, 2027 — midway through what would have been this pilot’s first school year. Has anyone at the district read the bill to determine whether “Sally” would be legal to operate in 2027?
- Realbotix’s business background is “companion” robots for loneliness and AI designed to be indistinguishable from humans. What is the risk that a student forms an attachment to this robot, and what happens when it starts to mean more to a young high school heart than any classroom technology should? What becomes of the data from that “relationship”? Have independent child psychologists or pediatric development experts reviewed “Sally,” and if so, what were their findings? And who called for a machine to have access to teenagers’ homework questions and late-night conversations in the first place?
- What safeguards keep students from simply offloading their thinking onto the machine — the exact opposite of the critical thinking this pilot claimed to foster?
- Where is the independent evidence that any of this improves learning? And if none exists, what do we call placing it in front of children — a pilot, or an experiment?
- This partnership reportedly began when a former district colleague met a company investor at a dinner. Salamanca’s students are 79 percent economically disadvantaged, and roughly a third are Native American. Who vetted this vendor and its corporate history? Why do untested, likely predatory “innovations” always seem to find underserved students first? Is “met an investor at a dinner” a procurement and community-engagement process the district recognizes?
- AI has long been criticized for perpetuating and amplifying bias found on the internet. Does Realbotix and the District have a plan to monitor and counter such bias as it presents itself in the classroom (beyond its choice of a fair-skinned, young female of presumably European descent)?
On the money:
- The district paid $57,590. We have been told this is a “discount” off a $95,000 list price. Add to this a subscription of nearly $2,000 a year for software updates, plus whatever regular maintenance a silicone-skinned robot requires. For that money, the district could hire an actual, human teaching assistant: certified and pre-loaded with real human empathy at no additional annual fee. Why wasn’t that the district’s first instinct?
Finally, a few questions we ask with all the rigor this rollout showed before it was paused:
- The district assured everyone that the robot would be stationary and would not roam the halls. If a student elopes from the classroom, would “Sally” give chase at her top speed of zero miles per hour?
- Will “Sally” take her turn on the duty rotation — hallway, cafeteria, bus loop — like every other “teaching assistant” in the building?
- When “Sally” is out for repairs, will the district call in a human substitute? And will that human being be paid more or less than the robot’s annual software subscription?
- A robot built by a company associated with sex dolls has no business in our classrooms. Not a question, just a statement (that we never thought we would have to say it).
- How will “Sally” be programmed to react during school fire and active shooter safety drills? Is she programmed to call 911 in an emergency and can she shield a student from danger?
We ask the absurd questions alongside the serious ones because the absurdity is the point and because nothing in current law required anyone to answer even the serious ones. Salamanca will not be the last district a robotics vendor approaches, and the safeguards our students receive cannot depend on which district is next, or on whether a reporter finds out in time. Every question above should have to be answered — fully, publicly, and in writing — before any humanoid, embodied or human-mimicking AI is placed in front of students in any New York classroom.
A call for statewide guardrails
We call on the Department and the Board of Regents, and/or the Governor and the Legislature, to establish clear, enforceable statewide guardrails for artificial intelligence in our schools with specific, heightened protections wherever AI is humanoid, embodied or designed to mimic human relationships so that these questions are asked before a purchase order is signed, not after a news story breaks. Educators, parents and students must be at the table when those rules are written. “Implement first, ask questions later” cannot become New York’s de facto education technology policy.
NYSUT is not anti-technology. We are pro-child. On one point, we agree with Salamanca’s superintendent: schools should teach the proper use of technology, not simply exclude it. So teach students about AI. Have them build it, code it, question it and understand it.Our members do that every day. That is profoundly different from installing a machine engineered to befriend children, and our state’s rules should know the difference.
The tide is already running in this direction. In New York, we have made great strides in reclaiming human-centered education, from restricting cellphone use in classrooms to signing nation-leading online child safety protections into law. Across the country, parents are organizing to demand stronger oversight of AI in their children’s schools. In May, NYSUT and its more than 700,000 members called for strict limits on AI and screen time in schools. And just this month, the largest school district in the nation froze new educational technology purchases entirely until guidance on artificial intelligence is in place.
New York is in a perfect position to lead on this issue, because every question in this letter leads back to the single question that matters most:
What problem facing our students can be better solved by a robot than by a caring adult?
The job that educators do day-in and day-out goes far beyond the facts and figures taught in a classroom: it is grounded in relationships, mentorship, the chance for every child to be seen and heard, and bearing human witness to the growth that takes place during a child’s formative years. No machine, however lifelike its silicone skin, can do that job — and no New York student should be the test case for the proposition that it can.
Salamanca showed that when New Yorkers ask hard questions, the system can listen. Now let us make sure the questions are asked every time, in every district, before the box is ever opened. Our students deserve authentic human intelligence: more relationships, more mentorship, more chances to be known and pushed forward by a great teacher. That is what every student in this state deserves.
Sincerely,
Melinda Person
President, New York State United Teachers