Workshop for teachers
AI training for teachers
We are preparing a workshop where teachers create and improve materials for their own classes with the help of AI. The price starts from €1,150 net per day. The program, number of groups and time to discuss the work depend on the subjects, participants' experience and tools approved by the institution.
- net per day of closed training for the team
- from €1,150
- people in one training group
- up to 15
- after this time, we measure the effect on the same tasks
- 30 days
- conversation with an engineer and a written plan within 2 business days
- €0
or call+48 888 78 48 78WhatsAppMon–Fri 9:00–17:00 CET
We belong to the OpenAI and Anthropic partner programmes and learn through their official courses. What this means ↓
Statistics
How much does AI training for teachers cost and when does it pay off?
Short answer
AI training for teachers costs from €1,150 net per day. In our Polish cost example, a PLN 4,900 training fee pays back in 2.6 months: 10 people save an hour a week, and after the licenses they have PLN 1,905 left per month. Teachers practice preparing materials and checking exercises, without student data. We measure task time before the training and after 30 days.
2.12.2027
According to the European Commission (2026), the provisions on high-risk systems from Annex III of the AI Act, which include recruitment and education, apply from December 2, 2027.
70,9%
According to Eurostat (2025), 70.9% of companies in the EU that have considered AI but are not using it cited a lack of knowledge within the team as the reason.
27%
According to ESET and DAGMA (2026), only 27% of companies have a written policy on the use of AI.
Source: ESET and DAGMA, Cyberportrait of Polish business (2026) ↗
Figures checked: 22 October 2026
Scope step by step
Program according to participants' work
A language teacher may need a task for a specific text, and a vocational subject teacher may need a description of a situation for discussion with a group. Before the session, we select tasks whose usefulness participants can assess. The joint introduction includes preparing the instruction and checking the answers; further practice refers to the selected materials.
Newcomers need time for the first draft and its editing. Regular users can work on changing the difficulty level or comparing several versions of the task. Knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the tool are considered separately. The teacher provides a substantive and pedagogical evaluation, while the facilitator helps with work with AI and improving the material.
Exercise with an answer not present in the text
In the example task, participants receive a short fictional description of an experience and prepare questions to check their understanding. AI also suggests a question about the cause of the phenomenon, although the description only provides the course of events. The teacher marks which answers can be justified by the text and which require additional knowledge.
The facilitator discusses the selected fragment: whether the instruction clearly states what the student should use, and whether the proposed key corresponds to that instruction. The participant improves the task, keeping the previous version for comparison. Then, they work on another description, in which the cause has already been provided. This change allows checking independent reading of the source, instead of repeating the previous correction.
A broader program may include editing instructions, preparing variations of the material, and checking facts. The selection of modules is determined according to what materials should be created after the session.
Preparation of the institution
We agree on the tool, available accounts, and rules for using the materials. Exercises can take place without students' work and their data. If the institution wants to use its own document, it indicates in advance the person approving its use. Purchasing licenses is the client's responsibility; configuring the environment requires separate agreement.
With a larger pedagogical team, it is necessary to select groups so that each participant can prepare a task and receive feedback. Repeating sessions, shorter sessions, and discussing tasks between meetings influence the requested scope. One daily rate does not mean a program for any number of people.
What to evaluate after the workshop
In a new task, the teacher should be able to explain the purpose of the material, check the basis of the answer, and correct an error in the draft. The management may discuss examples of work with the team and the time required for their preparation, taking into account the control. We do not present these sessions as proof of improved student results.
If the problem concerns searching for current documents of the institution, then a separate scope implementation of AI in education. Ask about the training program, specifying the subjects, the group's experience, and one material that teachers want to prepare more efficiently. No student documentation needs to be sent.
How much does the training cost and when does it pay off
Training starts at €1,150 net per day. We calculate the return on one process, without assumptions about the entire company.
- Time savings
- 43.3 hours/month
- Value of time
- 2,877 PLN
- ChatGPT Business Licenses
- 250 USD (972 PLN)
- Remaining after licenses
- 1,905 PLN/month
Return on training for 4,900 PLN
2.6 months
10 people × 1 hour weekly × 4.33 weeks = 43.3 hours. We cautiously assume an hour of savings per person weekly and check it by measuring the time of tasks before and after 30 days. An hour of work at 66.45 PLN is the average wage according to GUS from September 2026, including employer costs. Licenses: ChatGPT Business Standard 25 USD per place monthly, NBP exchange rate 3.8889 PLN. If the team already has licenses, the return is faster.
According to a study published in Science (2023), the time for writing tasks with ChatGPT decreased by 40%. Therefore, the scenario adopts a cautious weekly hour and checks it by measurement.
„I already use AI.”
Your people too. Just no rules.
From our conversations with companies
5 na 10 employees paste sensitive data into private AI accounts: contracts, invoices, customer data.
In ESET survey (2026)
1 na 10 admits this in the survey.
Customer data pasted into a private AI account without an data processing agreement is a violation of the GDPR.
Don't worry, we won't tell anyone :)
What do we see in companies that "already use"
- Only ChatGPT or Claude accounts, without plugins, skills, integrations and MCP servers with company tools.
- Company programs are not connected to AI. People still click through systems and Excel, and enter chat data manually.
- Lack of company standards: everyone writes instructions in their own way, no one shares what works.
- No rules for personal data, GDPR and company secrets.
- No limits and no visibility: no one knows who uses AI, how much and for what.
62% Polish employees use AI at work · 27% companies have written rules for working with AI.
Source: ESET and DAGMA, Cyberportrait of Polish business 2026 (March 2026, 1,026 people) ↗
ChatGPT or Claude space review
Accounts, permissions, rules for working with data and 5 tasks set for the team. 1 day.
€450 net
Training on your team's tasks, from €1,150 net per day.See range and price →
Scope and price
Training from €1,150 net per day
We determine the program, groups and time to discuss the work before the quote.
1:1 course participants
People we've trained one-on-one.
Kuba Koziej
CEO and co-founder, MoreGrowth
View the original training review on LinkedIn ↗„We started with my own AI agent. During the training that followed, I learned to build new applications myself. Today I am bringing this way of working with AI into my business. Working with Syntalith gave me exactly the skills and tools I needed.”
„A large stream of documents passes my desk every week. I now review, draft and prepare them with Claude in a fraction of the time, and research that used to eat an afternoon takes minutes. It is wired into the services I already work in, so the documents reach me instead of me hunting for them.”
Hlib UtkinPublic administration„I came in using coding agents ad hoc and left orchestrating them: loops, an agent kanban, a full development cycle that ships. What stayed with me is running context and cost on purpose, and building my own harnesses instead of waiting for a tool to ship one. It changed how I work day to day.”
Ivan ChepurinSenior Software Engineer, Immutable„I run a design studio, not an engineering team, and I still left with something working. We built an agent loop that pulls in leads and keeps an eye on the competition, and I put my own site together with Claude. It was hands-on, on my real work, not a talk about AI.”
Oleksandr UsykCo-founder & Art director, jakotako.design
Let's talk
Just write, call or choose a date.
We work fast because we hate corporate cotton wool. We don't have salespeople or managers to keep an eye on managers. You talk immediately to engineers who then build your system. We respect each other's time and yours too.
We will accept 3 more companies by the end of the year.
- Write
- contact@syntalith.ai
- Call
- +48 888 78 48 78
- write on WhatsApp
Mon–Fri 9:00–17:00 CET
