Scholastic Awards AI Rules: What Young Artists Can't Submit

The Scholastic Awards AI rules come down to one test, and it isn’t a detector. It’s a question: can the teen “demonstrate and articulate their creative decision-making process”? If not, the entry is ineligible. That standard, from the Scholastic Art & Writing Awards’ copyright and plagiarism policy, sits alongside a plainer rule: the Awards “do not permit and will deem ineligible any entries for which the final product is itself AI-generated.”

AI isn’t banned outright. Teens can use it to brainstorm, outline and research. What they can’t do is let it make the work. And the “explain your choices” test turns out to be one of the best authorship lessons a young artist can learn, contest or no contest.

Key Takeaways

• The Scholastic Awards permit AI “to aid in the artistic process,” such as brainstorming or outlining, and AI-powered search for research.
• Editing an original work with AI features built into apps like Adobe Photoshop or Procreate is listed as permissible.
• Entries are ineligible if the final product is AI-generated, defined as work “automatically created based on prompts or other inputs, with minimal or no human interaction.”
• Entrants must say whether and how they used AI. Saying yes doesn’t disqualify; “failure to answer honestly may be grounds for disqualification.”
• Awards can be revoked if work is later found to be AI-generated. Documenting drafts and process is “highly encouraged.”

What the Scholastic Awards AI Rules Say

The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards, run by the Alliance for Young Artists & Writers, is one of the best-known recognition programs for teen artists and writers in the US. Its AI policy lives inside its copyright and plagiarism guidelines, which frame AI as an originality question.

The policy opens by acknowledging “that many artists and writers are using Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies as a tool to engage in the making of original work.” Then it sets out the rules.

Allowed:

• “Using AI-powered tools to produce ideas, prompts, or suggestions early in the creative process”
• “Using AI-powered search functions for research purposes”
• “Using applications and software in which AI-powered features are embedded (e.g., Adobe Photoshop, Procreate) to edit or enhance an original work”

Not allowed:

• “Providing input such as image or text prompts to an AI-tool that automatically generates an image or piece of writing as the final product”
• “Any work for which the artist or writer is unable to demonstrate and articulate their creative decision-making process”

Disclosure: “As part of the entry process, you will be asked to indicate whether and how you’ve used AI-technologies during the creation of your work. Checking ‘yes’ to this box will not automatically disqualify your entry. However, failure to answer honestly may be grounds for disqualification.”

Consequences: An AI-generated entry is treated as a violation of the copyright and plagiarism policy. It “will be rejected as ineligible for an award or, if it has been selected for an award and is later determined to be AI-generated, the award will be taken back or canceled.” The policy adds that the Alliance may recall “all of a teen’s awards for works entered that year.”

The policy elsewhere is blunt: “AI-generated art and writing is NOT original.”

Why “Explain Your Choices” Is the Real Test

Here’s why the articulation standard is clever. AI detectors for images and text are unreliable, and a contest can’t watch every teen work. But a creator who made a piece can almost always explain it. Why this color? Why end the poem there? Why crop the photo tight? Those answers come from having made the decisions.

Someone who typed a prompt can describe the prompt. They usually can’t explain why the shadow falls at that angle, because they didn’t choose it. The policy’s self-check questions get at exactly this:

• “Who made the key artistic and creative decisions—a human, or a machine? Is this my own unique voice and vision?”
• “Did I apply my own artistic skills and techniques, and can I articulate them if asked?”
• “What could I show as evidence if there are concerns about my work’s originality?”
• “Would I feel that I am being truthful if my work is recognized for its originality?”

This lines up with the US Copyright Office’s approach. Its January 2025 report found that “prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output,” while human expression, selection, arrangement and modification can still be protected. Scholastic draws its own line, stricter in places, but the core idea is the same: authorship lives in the creative decisions. We cover the legal side in who owns AI art.

Why disclosure is the smart move

The rule that “checking yes” won’t disqualify you, but lying might, has research behind it. In 13 experiments published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes in 2025, Oliver Schilke and Martin Reimann found that people who disclosed AI use were trusted somewhat less, but the penalty was “comparatively weaker than the effect of third-party exposure.” Disclosure costs a little. Getting caught costs more. A contest that revokes awards after the fact is the third-party exposure scenario.

There’s also a reason teens may be tempted to stay quiet. Fiona Draxler and colleagues (ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2024) found that people “do not consider themselves the owners and authors of AI-generated text but refrain from publicly declaring AI authorship.” Naming that tendency helps kids resist it.

What’s In and Out: A Scholastic AI Decision Table

What the teen did	Allowed under the policy?	Why
Asked a chatbot for 10 story premises, then wrote their own story	Yes	AI for “ideas, prompts, or suggestions early in the creative process”
Used AI search to research a historical setting	Yes	AI search for research is listed as permissible
Drew a piece, then used Photoshop’s AI tools to clean up edges	Yes	Embedded AI features “to edit or enhance an original work”
Typed a prompt into an image generator and entered the image	No	Final product “automatically created based on prompts”
Had AI write a poem, then changed a few words	Very likely no	Minimal human interaction; hard to articulate creative decisions
Can’t explain why they made key choices in their piece	No	Explicitly listed as a violation
Used AI for brainstorming but checked “no” on the AI question	Risky	”Failure to answer honestly may be grounds for disqualification”

Note that other contests are stricter. The San Diego County Fair’s 2026 student showcase guide says, “Any work created by generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), either partially or completely, is not eligible,” and prohibits generative AI “in all divisions and classes.” Always read the specific contest’s rules.

How to Help a Young Artist Who Wants to Enter

Read the rules together before starting

Rules vary by contest and change by year. Sit down with the current policy at the start of a project, not the week it’s due. A teen who knows AI brainstorming is fine but AI final products aren’t can plan accordingly.

Keep a process trail

Scholastic says it is “highly encouraged” that artists and writers document their creative process: “saving outlines and drafts of written work, or photographing/downloading an artwork in early, unfinished, or in-process phases.” A phone album of in-progress photos or a folder of dated drafts is easy and may matter later. If AI was used for ideas, a short log of prompts works the same way; we explain that habit in keep a prompt log.

Practice the artist statement out loud

The articulation test is a skill that can be practiced. After your teen finishes a piece, ask three questions: “What were you trying to do? What’s one choice you’re proud of? What would you change?” If they can answer easily, they’re ready for any originality question. If they can’t, that’s useful to know before entering.

Disclose plainly

If AI helped with brainstorming, say so on the form. A one-line note (“I used ChatGPT to brainstorm possible settings; all writing is my own”) is honest and allowed. The policy is designed to reward that.

What not to do

Don’t treat the AI question as a trap to avoid. Teens who see disclosure as risky may hide harmless use, which is exactly what can lead to disqualification. And don’t assume every contest follows Scholastic’s rules. Science fairs, county fairs and school competitions all set their own. For science projects specifically, see science fair AI rules.

What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months

• Week 4: Your teen has read the rules for any contest they plan to enter and can say what AI use is allowed.
• Month 2 red flags: No drafts or process photos exist for a piece they plan to submit. They’re unsure whether something “counts” as AI-generated and haven’t asked. They plan to answer “no” on the AI question despite using it.
• Month 3 self-check: Your teen can give a two-minute explanation of the key choices in their best piece. That’s the Scholastic test, and it’s the mark of a creator.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you use AI in the Scholastic Art & Writing Awards?

Partly. The policy allows AI for brainstorming, outlining and research, and allows editing an original work with AI features built into apps like Photoshop or Procreate. It does not allow entries where the final product is AI-generated, or where the creator can’t explain their creative decision-making process.

Will checking “yes” on the AI question disqualify my teen?

No. The policy states that checking “yes” “will not automatically disqualify your entry.” What can lead to disqualification is not answering honestly. Research on adults suggests disclosing AI use costs less trust than being found out later, which is a good way to explain the rule to a teen.

What counts as AI-generated under Scholastic’s rules?

Scholastic defines AI-generated work as “a work that is automatically created based on prompts or other inputs, with minimal or no human interaction.” Typing a prompt into an image generator and entering the result is the clearest example. When in doubt, the policy advises not entering the work.

What happens if an award is later found to be AI-generated?

The award “will be taken back or canceled.” The policy also says the Alliance may recall all of a teen’s awards for works entered that year. That’s why documenting drafts and process matters: it’s the evidence a teen can provide if originality is questioned.

Are other art contests the same?

No. Rules differ. The San Diego County Fair’s 2026 student showcase, for example, bans generative AI entirely, even partial use. School and local contests may have no written policy at all. Always read the current rules for the specific contest, and ask the organizers if something isn’t clear.

---

About the author

Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.

---

Sources

1. Scholastic Art & Writing Awards (Alliance for Young Artists & Writers). “Copyright & Plagiarism” (including AI policy). https://www.artandwriting.org/awards/how-to-enter/copyright-plagiarism/
2. San Diego County Fair. (2026). “Student Showcase entry guide: Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Rules.” https://downloads.delmarfairgrounds.com/downloads/SDFair/2026/competitions/2026_student-showcase-ms_entry.pdf
3. U.S. Copyright Office. (2025, January 29). “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability.” https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
4. Schilke, O., & Reimann, M. (2025). “The transparency dilemma: How AI disclosure erodes trust.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104405
5. Draxler, F., Werner, A., Lehmann, F., Hoppe, M., Schmidt, A., Buschek, D., & Welsch, R. (2024). “The AI Ghostwriter Effect: When users do not perceive ownership of AI-generated text but self-declare as authors.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637875