Design a classroom you'd actually want to learn in.
AI is entering classrooms faster than anyone can evaluate it, and most of the conversation is happening about students, not with them. So here's the prompt: what would you automate, and what would you refuse to automate?
- Open nowRegistrationFree, a few minutes, in the Entrant Portal.
- September 25, 2026Submission deadlineEntries close 11:59 PM Pacific. Registered entrants receive submission instructions by email.
- October 3, 2026Results announcedWinners published and featured on aivanguard.org.
Questions before you register? Use the contact form.
Two things, one submission.
Design the classroom.
Design the AI-era classroom or learning experience you would genuinely want to learn in. How can we effectively integrate AI without taking away human integrity?
Defend one refusal.
Name one thing you'd refuse to automate, and defend it. Your refusal can live inside your design (a deliberate absence, a protected space, a human-only feature) or stand beside it as an argument.
The strongest entries will contain an actual opinion. We're looking for a specific, defensible position on where the line between human and machine belongs in learning.
We are not looking for “AI is good” or “AI is bad.” We're looking for the interesting, uncomfortable, specific territory in between. This competition is a thought experiment, but we want submissions thought through well enough that a school district could actually learn something from them.
Submissions in any format are welcome: working apps, code prototypes, essays, films, design mockups, interactive experiences, games, zines, policy proposals, or something we haven't thought of. The format is your choice; the thinking is what we judge.
Every entry needs four things.
Register in the Entrant Portal first. Then, whatever format you choose, your completed submission must include all four parts below.
- A · The work
The work itself
Build an app, write an essay, film something, design something. The format is your choice. We judge the thinking.
- Code / apps: a public repository link or hosted demo, plus a 2 to 3 minute walkthrough video. A screen recording is fine.
- Essays / written work: PDF, max 2,500 words.
- Video / film: max 6 minutes, hosted link. Unlisted YouTube is fine.
- Design / visual work: PDF or hosted link, max 15 pages or frames.
- Something else entirely? Email us before the deadline and we'll tell you how to submit it.
- B · Required
The Rationale (max 300 words)
A short written statement answering three questions. The Rationale is judged with equal weight for every entrant. It's how we fairly compare an app against an essay against a film: everyone thinks on the same 300-word playing field.
- What problem does your classroom design solve, and for whom?
- What can be improved in classrooms through AI?
- What is the one thing you refuse to automate, and why?
- C · Required
AI Use Disclosure
Tell us how you used AI tools in creating your submission. Using AI isn't just allowed. For a competition about AI, it's encouraged. But undisclosed AI use is grounds for disqualification. There's no penalty for heavy AI use; there's a penalty for hiding it. Judges may weigh how thoughtfully you used AI as part of Execution & Craft.
- D · Required
Entrant information
Name(s), age category, school or organization (if any), and a contact email. We encourage individual entries; teams of up to 4 are permitted, and prizes are split equally among team members.
Every format, scored on the same five criteria.
Judges are instructed to score the thinking, not the medium. A brilliant essay beats a mediocre app, and vice versa.
- 01
Insight & Originality
25 pointsDoes this submission contain an idea we haven't seen fifty times?
- 21-25
A genuinely novel angle, or a familiar idea reframed so sharply it feels new. Judges want to argue about it afterward.
- 15-20
A solid, specific idea with at least one original element or unexpected connection. We're looking for nuance.
- 8-14
Competent but familiar. Ideas the judges have encountered in mainstream ed-tech discourse.
- 0-7
Generic. “AI tutor personalizes learning; teachers provide human connection” with no further development.
- 21-25
- 02
The Acceptance vs. the Refusal
25 pointsWhat would you automate, and what would you refuse to automate?
- 21-25
The refusals and acceptances are specific and surprising, defended with real reasoning (not sentiment), and structurally connected to the design. Remove them and the whole submission changes.
- 15-20
A clear, specific acceptance and refusal with genuine argumentation, though the connection to the design may be loose.
- 8-14
A refusal is named but defended with platitudes (“human connection matters”) rather than reasoning, or it reads as a list rather than a position.
- 0-7
The refusal is missing, an afterthought, or so broad it's meaningless (“I'd never automate teaching”).
- 21-25
- 03
Depth of Reasoning
20 pointsHas the entrant thought past the first-order effects?
- 17-20
Engages seriously with trade-offs, failure modes, or counterarguments. Acknowledges what the design costs, not just what it gains.
- 12-16
Some awareness of trade-offs or limitations; addresses at least one obvious objection.
- 6-11
Purely first-order thinking. The design is presented as having only upsides.
- 0-5
No evidence of reasoning beyond the initial idea.
- 17-20
- 04
Execution & Craft
20 pointsIs the work well-made for its chosen format?
- 17-20
Exceptional craft: polished, deliberate, and complete for its medium. For apps: it works. For essays: it's well-written. For films: it's well-made.
- 12-16
Solid execution with minor rough edges that don't obscure the idea.
- 6-11
Noticeable gaps in execution (broken features, unclear writing, unfinished sections) that get in the way.
- 0-5
Execution problems make the idea hard to evaluate at all.
Judge's note: Craft is scored relative to the format's demands, not its production cost. A tightly argued 1,500-word essay can earn 20/20; a feature-rich but confused app can earn 8/20. Judges may also weigh how thoughtfully the entrant used AI (per their AI Use Disclosure) as part of this criterion.
- 17-20
- 05
Communication
10 pointsCan we understand it, quickly?
- 9-10
The core idea lands within minutes. The Rationale is sharp. Nothing requires re-reading.
- 6-8
Clear overall, with occasional confusion or clutter.
- 3-5
The idea is in there, but the judge has to dig for it.
- 0-2
Unclear what is being proposed.
- 9-10
Tiebreakers, in order: the higher score on Insight & Originality, then a judges' panel discussion and vote.
Three rounds, no shortcuts.
Entries are judged by a panel of 5 to 7 professionals from the AI and education fields. Judges recuse themselves from scoring any entrant they know personally or professionally.
- 01
Screening
Organizers check each entry for completeness (the work, the Rationale, and the AI disclosure) and rules compliance. Incomplete entries get one email and 48 hours to fix.
- 02
Scoring
Every eligible entry is independently scored by at least two judges using the rubric, and the scores are averaged. If two judges' totals differ by more than 20 points, a third judge scores the entry and the outlier is dropped.
- 03
Finalist panel
The top 10 entries are re-read by the full judging panel together, and judges may adjust scores after discussion. Finalists may be invited to a brief 10-minute live or video Q&A, used to verify authorship and probe reasoning, not to re-pitch.
The fine print, in plain language.
Ten rules, no legalese. Everything that governs entry and judging is on this page or linked right here.
- 01
Who can enter
Anyone. Two divisions: Under 18 and Open (all ages). Students, educators, parents: everyone is a learner.
- 02
Free to enter
No purchase, payment, or donation is ever required to enter or to win.
- 03
One entry per person or team
Enter solo or as a team of up to 4. A person may not appear on multiple teams, and prizes are split equally among team members.
- 04
Original work
Created for this competition, or substantially developed during it. Building on prior work is fine, just disclose it.
- 05
AI use
Allowed and encouraged anywhere in your process, on one condition: full disclosure. Undisclosed AI use is grounds for disqualification.
- 06
You keep your work
Entrants retain full ownership. Entering grants AI Vanguard a non-exclusive license to display, publish, and promote your work, always with credit.
- 07
Privacy & consent
If your entry shows real students, classrooms, or identifiable people, you must have their consent to include them.
- 08
Content standards
No hateful, obscene, harassing, or unlawful content. Entries that cross the line are removed from consideration.
- 09
Disqualification
Plagiarism, undisclosed AI use, or fabricated data or testimonials will disqualify an entry.
- 10
Decisions are final
Judges' scores and decisions are final; there are no appeals.
$1,000 in awards, and a seat at the table.
Winning work gets published on aivanguard.org, and winners are invited into the organization's orbit, not just handed a check.
- Cash award
- Published & highlighted feature on aivanguard.org
- Presentation opportunity
- Board opportunity
- Cash award
- Published feature
- Board opportunity
- Cash award
- Published feature
- Board opportunity
Before you ask: yes, you can use AI.
How do I enter?
Open the Entrant Portal (it opens in a new tab) and register. It's free and takes a few minutes. You'll receive confirmation and submission instructions by email, and your completed entry is due September 25, 2026.
Can I use AI to build my submission?
Yes, and it's encouraged. Disclose how you used it. We judge your thinking and your choices.
Does my classroom design have to be realistic or buildable today?
No. Speculative designs are welcome, but Depth of Reasoning still applies: engage honestly with what your design would cost and where it could fail.
Can my “refusal” be something unconventional?
Please. “I'd refuse to automate grading” defended brilliantly beats “I'd refuse to automate teachers” defended vaguely. Surprising, specific refusals score highest.
I'm a teacher or parent, not a student. Can I enter?
Yes. The prompt is the classroom you'd want to learn in, and everyone is a learner.
What if my format doesn't fit the categories?
Email us before the deadline. We'll find a way to accept it.
Do teams split the judging criteria?
No. A submission is judged as one work, regardless of team size.
Got an opinion? Prove it.
Registration is open now in the Entrant Portal and takes a few minutes. Completed entries are due September 25, 2026, and results will be announced October 3, 2026.