Scholastic Art & Writing Awards: A Practical Guide

Editorial overview

The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards began in 1923 under Maurice R. Robinson, the founder of Scholastic Inc.; the Alliance for Young Artists & Writers was formed in 1994 to manage the expanding programme. Its founding idea was unusually direct: creative teenagers should have their work taken seriously and celebrated with the same public energy given to young athletes. A century later, the Alliance still frames the programme around recognition, exhibition, publication and support for young artists and writers rather than around a single school assignment.

What makes Scholastic distinctive is the combination of extraordinary breadth and a very compact editorial standard. Work across visual and literary forms is reviewed anonymously against originality, skill and the emergence of a personal voice or vision. The official juror history includes figures such as Langston Hughes, Judy Blume, Billy Collins, Edwidge Danticat, David Sedaris, Nikki Giovanni, Ocean Vuong and Elizabeth Acevedo. That is a varied group, but the published criteria do not ask entrants to imitate any one established style; they ask whether the work makes purposeful choices and sounds or looks like its own maker.

Recent official portfolio features show how that principle works in practice. Jack Adams's visual portfolio, The New Cave Culture, connects early human communication with present-day uncertainty about humanity's direction. Joyce Kim's portfolio turns her experience of immigration and discomfort with change into a sustained exploration of control, fear, perfectionism and acceptance. These are very different projects, yet both are coherent bodies of work built around a specific preoccupation rather than collections of unrelated polished pieces.

Those cases suggest an editorial preference for work whose craft serves an identifiable point of view. Technical finish counts, but it is not enough by itself, and fashionable subject matter is not a substitute for sustained attention. From CompeteMap's perspective, this is the programme's real value: it treats teenagers as developing artists and writers with something particular to say, while exposing their work to readers and jurors drawn from the wider creative world. Students should notice that seriousness, not merely the famous alumni list.

Quick Facts

For current dates, eligibility and registration details, see the Scholastic Art & Writing Awards competition page.

Review Evaluation

Rated Advanced. Strong entries combine accomplished craft with originality and a distinctive personal voice, often after substantial development and revision.

Start with the work, not the occasion

The most productive starting question is simple: which piece still holds the student’s attention after the excitement of making it has faded? Work with staying power often contains a tension, image, voice or formal decision that the creator has not exhausted. That is more promising than choosing something only because it looks conventionally impressive.

Students should gather a small group of possible pieces and look for evidence of intention. In visual work, that may appear in composition, material, scale or the relationship between subject and background. In writing, it may appear in point of view, structure, rhythm or the handling of detail. The aim is to identify choices that belong to the piece rather than effects borrowed without much thought.

Originality is not novelty for its own sake

Young creators often hear that they must be original and assume this requires an unprecedented subject. Usually the more useful question is whether the work carries a specific way of seeing. A familiar family scene can feel fresh when the observation is exact. A technically unusual image can still feel empty when its choices are decorative rather than necessary.

This is where editorial conversation helps. Ask the student what they noticed that another person might have missed. Ask which choice they would defend even if a viewer found it uncomfortable. Ask where the work becomes more predictable than the original idea. These questions encourage ownership without telling the student what the answer should be.

Choosing the right category

Category choice should follow the actual character of the piece. Students sometimes choose according to status or perceived competitiveness, but that can distort how the work is presented. Look closely at the medium, form and central experience. If a project combines several methods, identify which element does the essential expressive work.

The description accompanying a submission should be plain and accurate. It need not perform the creativity a second time. Its job is to help the reader understand the work’s form and context where that is genuinely necessary. Inflated language can make a thoughtful piece feel less confident.

Revision for writers

Writers benefit from separating structural revision from sentence polishing. Begin by asking what the piece is actually about now, which may differ from the idea that started it. Check whether each scene, paragraph or stanza changes the reader’s understanding. Remove passages that merely repeat the emotional conclusion the work has already earned.

Only then move closer to the line. Read aloud for rhythm and unintended repetition. Replace abstract explanation with precise detail where the detail can carry the meaning. Pay attention to endings: a piece often weakens when it explains one sentence beyond its natural stopping point. A trusted reader should describe their experience before prescribing a fix, giving the writer evidence rather than control.

Revision for artists

Visual artists can use distance as an editing tool. Photograph the work, reduce it to a thumbnail, view it in a mirror or leave it unseen for several days. These changes interrupt familiarity and reveal whether the composition still directs attention as intended. They can also expose areas that are highly worked but not meaningfully connected to the whole.

Technical cleanup matters when it protects the idea. Crooked documentation, inaccurate colour or distracting edges can prevent a viewer from meeting the work on its own terms. But polishing every irregularity can also remove energy. The student should know which marks are accidents and which are part of the visual language.

The same principle applies to digital preparation. A faithful photograph or scan should not quietly become a redesign. Students need enough technical care to preserve colour, contrast, scale and orientation, while resisting filters that make the file tell a different visual story. Writers should likewise check that line breaks, spacing and typography carry the intended reading experience. Presentation is most successful when it becomes almost invisible and allows the creative decision to remain central.

The mentor’s role

The best mentorship makes the student more articulate about their own decisions. A teacher can ask for alternatives, point to a place where attention drops and help plan manageable revision sessions. The teacher should not become the invisible co-author. If the student cannot explain why a major choice exists, the work may no longer be fully theirs.

It is also worth protecting experimentation. Not every session should be devoted to improving the selected piece. Side studies, discarded openings and material tests allow a student to solve problems without the pressure of preserving what already works. Often the strongest revision arrives indirectly through that play.

Presenting the work honestly

A coherent submission is not the same as a perfectly uniform one. What matters is that the selected material gives a credible picture of the student’s attention and ability. When several pieces are presented together, consider the conversation among them: do they repeat one solution, or do they show the creator testing an idea from different angles?

Before sending anything, compare the digital representation with the original. Check crop, orientation, sound, pacing and file playback where relevant. For writing, confirm that formatting supports rather than distracts from reading. These practical checks are quiet editorial work, but they shape how fairly the work can be encountered.

One careful review on a different screen can reveal subtle problems before submission.

Key Takeaways

• Select work with genuine staying power rather than chasing a fashionable subject.
• Treat originality as a specific point of view expressed through deliberate craft.
• Let the work’s actual form guide category choice.
• Revise structure before polishing isolated details.
• Keep mentorship supportive while preserving the student’s authorship.
• Present the work accurately and without inflated explanation.

Sources checked

Information checked on 2026-08-28.

• https://www.artandwriting.org/awards/
• https://cms.artandwriting.org/awards/how-to-enter/
• https://www.artandwriting.org/awards/how-to-enter/calendar/
• https://cms.artandwriting.org/participation-terms/
• https://www.artandwriting.org/frequently-asked-questions/
• https://cms.artandwriting.org/awards/history/
• https://newsroom.artandwriting.org/about-us/
• https://cms.artandwriting.org/awards/recognition/
• https://newsroom.artandwriting.org/2026/07/24/eyes-on-the-prize-jack-adams-and-niamh-carmichael/
• https://newsroom.artandwriting.org/2026/08/14/eyes-on-the-prize-joyce-kim-and-ananya-kharat/