Humanoid Robots in Schools: How New York and California Are Drawing the Regulatory Line

When the Salamanca City Central School District in western New York announced plans to put a humanoid robot in a high school classroom, the backlash was swift and multifaceted — parents, teachers, state regulators, and eventually legislators all pushed back. Within months, New York had a bill explicitly designed to ban humanoid robots from teaching roles, and California had passed a law ensuring that K-12 students must be taught by a “natural human.” Together, these developments represent the first real regulatory framework for humanoid robots in American schools, and they carry implications that extend well beyond U.S. borders.

In Brief

• New York State Sen. Shelley Mayer introduced S.10671 in October 2026 to prohibit AI-enabled humanoid robots from performing teaching responsibilities in public schools, charter schools, and BOCES
• The bill would ban humanoid robots from delivering instruction, tutoring, assessing student performance, grading, and performing any duties ordinarily carried out by a certified teacher
• California has already passed legislation requiring that K-12 students be taught by a “natural human,” not AI
• The Salamanca pilot — a $57,590 Realbotix humanoid robot nicknamed “Sally” — was paused on July 24, 2026, after State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa raised concerns about privacy and the robot’s classroom role
• The NYSUT teachers union, NY PTA, and multiple state senators have publicly supported the New York bill
• These early regulations create a precedent that EdTech companies, school leaders, and education systems worldwide — including in Pakistan — should study before deploying humanoid robots in classrooms

What New York’s Bill Actually Says

According to reporting by WRGB, Sen. Shelley Mayer — Chair of the Senate Committee on Education — introduced S.10671 in response to the Salamanca controversy. The bill would require every school district, charter school, and Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) in New York to adopt a written policy governing the use of humanoid robots in schools. That policy must prohibit AI-enabled humanoid robots from performing the responsibilities of a teacher, including:

• Delivering or leading classroom instruction
• Providing one-on-one or small-group instruction
• Tutoring students
• Offering educational support services
• Assessing or evaluating student performance
• Grading student work
• Carrying out any other duties ordinarily performed by a certified teacher

The bill does not appear to ban humanoid robots from schools entirely. It targets their use in instructional roles — the specific functions that critics argue could either replace teachers or create confusion about the robot’s authority in the classroom.

Sen. Mayer stated: “Humanoid AI robots designed to look and interact like people present unique concerns in schools, not the least of which is the impact on children. These systems have the potential to foster inappropriate emotional attachments or relationships with students, and like any technology, cannot be used to replace the human interaction that is so critical to intellectual, social and age-appropriate development.”

Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, Chair of the Senate Internet and Technology Committee, co-sponsored the bill, stating that “AI-powered humanoid robots lack any research and raise serious concerns about how these devices could impact the social and emotional development of children.” Sen. Rachel May also voiced support, emphasizing that teachers “mentor, encourage, and help students build the social and emotional skills they need to succeed, something a humanoid robot can’t replace.”

What California’s Law Does

While New York’s bill is still working through the legislative process, California has already enacted a law that addresses the same concern from a different angle. According to multiple news reports, including EdSource and the New York Post, California passed legislation ensuring that K-12 students are taught by a “natural human” rather than AI. The law prevents AI from being designated as the primary instructor for K-12 courses.

California’s approach is notable because it frames the issue around the identity of the teacher rather than the technology itself. A humanoid robot in a California classroom could theoretically be used as a demonstration tool or supplementary resource, but it cannot serve as the teacher of record. This distinction matters for EdTech companies designing products for the U.S. education market.

The Salamanca Case: What Triggered the Legislation

The regulatory momentum in both states traces back to the Salamanca City Central School District’s plan to deploy a humanoid robot in high school STEAM courses. The district approved a $57,590 contract with Toronto-based Realbotix in June 2026 for a humanoid robot nicknamed “Sally” and an accompanying AI avatar teaching assistant called Optio.

According to the EdTech Innovation Hub, which reported on the pilot when it was first announced, the system was designed to work with Woz ED AI and Robotics courses at Salamanca High School. The plan called for expanding to approximately 500 students during the fall semester. Realbotix CEO Andrew Kiguel described it as “a landmark moment for both AI and humanoid robotics” and said the company was “moving beyond lab demonstrations and pilots to deliver real, embodied AI directly into classrooms.”

The backlash came from multiple directions. New York State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa sent a letter to Salamanca Superintendent Mark Beehler on July 24, 2026, noting that “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 also flagged a discrepancy: while district representatives said the robot would not deliver classroom instruction, a presentation to the school board had described it as a “tutoring platform.”

That same day, the district announced via Facebook that the program was on hold while officials worked through “enhanced student data privacy agreements” with the state education agency.

The New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) union was blunter. NYSUT President Melinda Person stated: “Sen. Mayer moved quickly, and we thank her for her leadership to create statewide guardrails so districts don’t become testing grounds for humanoid robots.” The union also criticized Realbotix’s corporate background — the company had acquired the parent company behind RealDoll, a manufacturer of hyperrealistic adult dolls, in 2024. Realbotix maintained that its education and adult businesses operated separately with different staff, facilities, and technology.

NY PTA President Patty Frazier added: “We agree that AI technologies such as this should not have any instructional role with our students.”

Why Regulators Are Acting Now

The push to regulate humanoid robots in schools is happening for three overlapping reasons:

The technology has crossed a threshold. Humanoid robots are no longer laboratory demos. Companies like Realbotix, Unitree, XPENG, and Figure are producing robots that can hold conversations, display facial expressions, and respond in real time. As we analyzed in our coverage of XPENG’s IRON humanoid robot production line, the industry is transitioning from prototyping to volume manufacturing. When robots start appearing in classrooms rather than trade show booths, regulators take notice.

The educational claims are outpacing the evidence. Despite growing interest in social robots for education, peer-reviewed research on their effectiveness in K-12 classrooms remains limited. A 2026 review published in Frontiers in Robotics and AI examined low-cost social robot designs for education and found significant variation in outcomes depending on robot design, interaction model, and classroom context. The lack of consistent evidence makes it difficult for regulators to justify unrestricted deployment, particularly when the robots are designed to interact with minors.

The privacy and child safety concerns are specific and serious. Unlike a tablet running an educational app, a humanoid robot with cameras, microphones, and conversational AI creates a fundamentally different privacy surface. The Salamanca district said its robot would not collect personally identifiable information, would not record audio or video, and would not transmit student data to Realbotix. But state regulators were not satisfied with voluntary assurances — they wanted enforceable agreements.

What This Means for EdTech Builders

For companies building robotics products for education, the regulatory landscape is shifting from “no rules” to “some rules” — and that transition creates both constraints and opportunities.

Build for Compliance From Day One

The New York bill requires written policies governing humanoid robot use in schools. California requires a “natural human” as the primary instructor. EdTech companies that design products assuming no regulatory friction will face deployment delays or outright bans. Products should be designed with clear role boundaries — supporting teachers rather than replacing them — and with privacy architectures that can satisfy state-level requirements.

This is a lesson we previously drew from the Salamanca backlash, but it bears repeating: the non-technical layers of an EdTech product — privacy policy, teacher training, community engagement, regulatory compliance — are not add-ons. They are the product.

The “Teaching Assistant” Framing Is Under Threat

Many humanoid robot companies position their products as “teaching assistants” rather than teacher replacements. The New York bill explicitly prohibits tutoring, which is the core function of a teaching assistant. If passed, this framing will no longer be legally viable in New York.

For product builders, this means rethinking what role a humanoid robot can play in a classroom without falling under the bill’s prohibitions. Possible compliant use cases include:

• A demonstration subject in a robotics or AI course, where students learn about the robot’s technology rather than being taught by it
• A tool for teachers to use in presenting concepts, similar to a smart board or 3D printer
• A research platform for university-level engineering education, where the robot is the object of study rather than the instructor

Regulation Creates a Level Playing Field

While regulation can feel like a barrier, it also creates predictability. Companies that build compliant products will have a competitive advantage over those that ignore the regulatory trajectory. Clear rules also give schools the confidence to adopt products that comply, rather than avoiding the category entirely after a high-profile failure like Salamanca.

What This Means for Schools and Educators

For school leaders, the emerging regulatory framework offers a checklist for evaluating humanoid robot proposals:

1. Does the product assume a teaching role? If the vendor’s marketing materials describe the robot as a tutor, instructor, or teaching assistant, the product may not be legally deployable in states with restrictions on AI in instructional roles.
2. Is there a written policy governing the robot’s use? New York’s bill requires one. Even in states without specific legislation, having a policy protects the district.
3. What data does the robot collect, and where does it go? The Salamanca case showed that voluntary vendor assurances are not sufficient. Data agreements need to be enforceable.
4. Has the community been consulted? The Salamanca backlash was amplified by the perception that the decision was made without adequate community input. Districts that engage parents and teachers early will face less resistance.
5. Is the vendor’s corporate history compatible with a school environment? Due diligence is not optional. The Realbotix case demonstrated that a vendor’s background can derail an otherwise technically sound pilot.

For educators, the message from regulators is consistent: AI can support teaching, but it cannot replace the human relationships that are central to learning. This aligns with the practical guidance we outlined in our guide to choosing educational robotics platforms, where we emphasized that curriculum integration and teacher capacity matter more than hardware specifications.

Relevance for Pakistan and Emerging Education Markets

Pakistan’s education system faces different constraints than New York or California — teacher shortages, limited infrastructure, and uneven access to technology — but the regulatory questions are surprisingly relevant.

The Punjab government’s AI curriculum initiative, which we examined in our analysis of Punjab’s AI curriculum implementation challenges, demonstrates that Pakistani education authorities are already thinking about AI in classrooms. The question is whether that thinking includes specific policies for physical AI devices like humanoid robots.

For Pakistani EdTech companies and school systems, the U.S. regulatory experience offers a useful reference point. Rather than waiting for a high-profile incident to trigger reactive regulation, education ministries and provincial governments can proactively define what role AI and robotics can play in classrooms. This means:

• Establishing clear boundaries between AI-supported learning and AI-delivered instruction
• Requiring data privacy agreements for any AI system used in schools
• Creating vendor evaluation criteria that include corporate history and product lineage
• Consulting teachers, parents, and community stakeholders before deploying novel technologies

For organizations building educational robotics platforms in Pakistan, the regulatory landscape in the U.S. should be read as a preview of what is coming globally. Products that are designed to comply with the most restrictive regulatory environment will be easier to deploy everywhere.

Product Builder’s Perspective

From a product-building perspective, the emerging regulation of humanoid robots in schools reveals a market that is still searching for its boundaries. The Salamanca case was not a technology failure — the robot was never deployed, so we do not know whether it would have worked. It was a deployment failure, caused by a mismatch between the product’s ambition and the social infrastructure required to support it.

The New York and California regulations are attempting to draw that boundary explicitly. For product teams, the key question is not “can we build a humanoid robot that teaches?” but “what role can a humanoid robot play in a classroom that is legally defensible, pedagogically sound, and socially acceptable?”

This is fundamentally a product design question, not just a regulatory compliance question. A humanoid robot designed as a teaching tool — where students learn about robotics, AI, and human-machine interaction by studying the robot itself — fits within the emerging regulatory framework. A humanoid robot designed to teach students — where the robot delivers content, assesses performance, and replaces human interaction — does not.

For STEAM educators, this distinction matters. The most valuable classroom robotics experiences are those where students build, program, and experiment with robots, not those where a robot delivers a lesson. A simulation environment paired with modular robotics kits gives students agency and ownership over their learning in a way that interacting with a fixed humanoid robot cannot.

What to Watch Next

• New York S.10671 progress. The bill has been introduced but not yet passed. Watch for committee hearings, amendments, and floor votes. If it passes, it will be the first state law in the U.S. specifically targeting humanoid robots in schools.
• Other states following suit. Pennsylvania has already seen a lawmaker propose an AI instructors ban in charter schools, according to GovTech. Expect more states to introduce similar legislation.
• Realbotix’s next move. The company has rebranded its education product as “Optio” and stated it is pursuing a corporate separation from its adult entertainment lineage. Whether this separation restores institutional trust will determine whether the company can operate in the U.S. education market.
• Pakistan’s regulatory response. As AI and robotics become more prevalent in Pakistani education, watch for provincial or federal policies that define the boundaries of AI in classrooms. The lesson from the U.S. is that proactive regulation is preferable to reactive regulation.
• Evidence base for humanoid robots in education. The regulatory debate is currently driven by concerns and principles rather than data. Rigorous studies on whether humanoid robots improve learning outcomes — and for which students, in which contexts — would inform both regulation and product design.

Conclusion

The regulatory line being drawn in New York and California is not anti-technology. It is pro-human-relationship in a domain where human relationships are the foundation of learning. For EdTech builders, this means the era of deploying humanoid robots in classrooms without regulatory friction is over. For educators, it means that the pushback against AI in instructional roles is now codified into law in some states and is building momentum in others. And for education systems in Pakistan and similar markets, the U.S. experience offers a chance to get ahead of the curve — defining policies before incidents force them.

The robots are getting better. The regulations are getting clearer. The question for EdTech builders is whether they can build products that work within both constraints — or whether they will keep building for a world that no longer exists.

---

Should humanoid robots be allowed in classrooms as teaching tools, even if they cannot serve as teachers? What would it take for your school to trust one?

Sources

• WRGB — Senate Ed chair’s bill would ban AI-enabled humanoid robots from teaching roles in schools (October 2026)
• Rye Record — Bot Out: Bill Would Ban AI Humanoid Robots From New York Classrooms (October 2026)
• EdTech Innovation Hub — AI gets a body as humanoid robot enters New York classroom (July 2026)
• Memeburn — New York school pauses humanlike AI robot teacher after backlash (October 2026)
• Realbotix — Official website (accessed October 2026)
• New York Focus — This Western NY School District Will Be One of First to Bring Humanoid Robot Into Classroom (July 2026)
• EdSource — California law ensures humans, not AI, are teaching K-12 students (2026)
• New York Post — California passes law to ensure your child is taught by a ‘natural human,’ not AI (2025)
• GovTech — Pennsylvania Lawmaker Proposes AI Instructors Ban in Charters (2026)