If you think kids will respect a robot teacher, you have never met a kid | Dave Schilling
The article criticises a New York school district’s now-paused plan to spend $60,000 on a humanoid robot teaching assistant called Sally. The writer argues that pupils are unlikely to respect or engage seriously with a robot, and questions whether the proposal represents a useful educational investment.
Sally was intended for high-school technology and robotics classes in Salamanca, a rural district whose superintendent said it would give students access to advanced technology and practical experience maintaining and updating it. The writer contends that the district could instead direct the money towards teachers or pupils’ equipment, noting concerns about under-resourced and underpaid public-school staff.
- Salamanca paused a $60,000 robot teaching-assistant scheme.
- Sally was intended for technology and robotics lessons.
- The writer questions its value compared with funding teachers or equipment.
New here? Start with this
Schools are increasingly exploring artificial intelligence and robotics as teaching tools, often with the aim of giving pupils experience of technology they may encounter in future jobs. A humanoid teaching assistant is a robot designed to interact with people in a classroom-like setting, rather than simply a computer program used by a teacher.
The Salamanca school district is a rural public-school system in New York state. Its superintendent supported using the robot in technology and robotics lessons so pupils could learn how it works, including maintaining and updating it.
The proposal has also raised a wider question about how schools should spend limited budgets. Public schools often have to balance investment in new technology against spending on staff, classroom resources and support for pupils.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that a humanoid robot could be a worthwhile specialist resource for technology and robotics pupils, especially in a rural district with limited access to advanced equipment. Maintaining, programming and evaluating it could provide practical experience that conventional classroom materials cannot, helping pupils understand both the potential and limitations of emerging technology. They may see the purchase as an investment in skills and curiosity rather than a replacement for teachers.
The case against
Critics argue that $60,000 is difficult to justify when schools face more immediate needs, including adequately paid staff, classroom equipment and direct support for pupils. A robot may attract initial attention but cannot offer the judgement, relationships or authority that effective teaching depends on, and pupils may not treat it seriously. From this perspective, technology education can be strengthened more reliably through well-supported teachers and tools that serve more students directly.