Your students already use AI. Your cloister doesn’t know what to say either. And your center has no position about it. Ethiceye builds that framework with you, from the inside out, tailored to your reality.
Students use AI to complete homework they don’t understand.
UNESCO, the European Commission and the AI Act have been saying the same thing for some time: it is not enough to learn how to use technology. We must also learn how to make informed decisions about it.
75% of young people in Spain already use generative AI. Yet most educational institutions still lack a clear institutional position on its use.
5 sessions of 2h · Group · Face-to-face or online
Free personalized proposal in 48h
The objective is not for teachers to use more tools. It is that the center has, at the end of the program, a first real version of its institutional position before AI. Something that can be used, defended and updated.
The Deliverable: The Center’s AI use policy, co-built by the cloister.
2h · Group · FP and University
Free personalized proposal in 48h
Does not teach how to use ChatGPT. Works the critical conscience: what the student delegates when he uses AI without criteria, what responsibility he has for what he produces, and three questions that he takes forever.
Students who learn to think before they delegate to AI will enter the workforce with a significant advantage.
VET center
Innovation Coordinator
Management team
ethicvoice (conference)
Ethicedu teachers
Universities
Vice-Rector for Innovation
academic direction
Directly EthiceDu Full Program
business schools
Program Director
Dean
Ethicedu + Strategic Consulting
The European AI Regulation classifies as high-risk AI systems used in evaluation, access or selection of students. Since February 2025, any center that uses AI systems must ensure that its staff have powers to operate them. August 2026 marks the deadline for the systems already deployed.
Ethicedu exactly covers this obligation: actual and documented training of the cloister, adapted to the specific systems used by your center.
Last update: May 2026
Existing teacher training plans teach how to use tools: how to create Prompts, how to use CoPilot, how to integrate AI into didactic programming. Ethiceye builds the criteria that allow you to decide when and how to use those tools, and when not. The result is different: one forms the teacher, the other transforms how the center decides. And the deliverable too: at the end of Ethicedu the center has its institutional position before the AI, not a hour certificate.
No. The program starts from the reality of each teaching team. There are cloisters where half of the teaching staff use AI daily and the other half has not opened ChatGPT in their life. That’s not a problem: it’s exactly the ideal starting point for building a shared criteria that works for everyone. What matters is not the previous technological level. It is having the problem on the table.
The European AI Regulation classifies as high-risk AI systems used in the evaluation, access or selection of students. Since February 2025, any center that uses AI systems must ensure that its staff has documented skills to operate and supervise them (Article 4). By August 2026, high-risk systems already deployed need conformity assessment. Ethicedu directly covers this obligation: real and documented training of the cloister adapted to the context of your center.
There are three arguments with real weight. First, the risk: if your center has no position before the AI and an incident occurs (plagiarism, use of data of minors, contradictory criteria between teachers), institutional responsibility is diffuse and the reputational damage is concrete. Second, the Legal: The AI Act has actual dates and fines. Third, that of positioning: the centers that build criteria will now be those that in three years can say that they were anticipated. If you need arguments for the internal proposal, we help you prepare them.
The program can be done in face-to-face, online or mixed format, depending on the availability of the cloister and the geography of the center. What changes is the logistics, not the process or the deliverable. Experience shows that criteria building sessions (sessions 3 and 4) win with face-to-face, but the initial diagnosis and closing session work well remotely. We agreed on the previous diagnostic call.
In 30 minutes we understand if there is lace and what the process would be like.
