AEP Awards

AEP Awards Judging

Because of the number of entries, the level of competition, and the awards judging process, even being named an AEP Awards Finalist is no small feat. Entries are first reviewed by screening judges, who narrow the field followed by the final judging certifying committee who review and certify finalists and winners in all categories.

Within each awards program, it is important to note the difference in how the judges consider the materials. You may also download a sample evaluation form. [Adobe PDF]

Judging Process and Criteria

Distinguished Achievement Awards
All products submitted undergo a two-tier judging process by highly qualified individuals who are experts in their respective areas. Products that are selected by the initial screening judge will go to final judging where a panel of certifying judges will review and certify finalists and winners. At the end of the process, all entrants may ask to receive the judges feedback for use in self-evaluating their products.

Print and electronic categories will be judged on the “technical merits” that the committee feels identify a high quality product. For example, entries in all Periodical/Editorial categories will be judged on:

Quality of writing, e.g. appropriate for audience, clear, tight, lively, and consistent
Educational value
Originality/Creativity
Audience interest

Categories that include whole products will be considered for creativity, originality of product, educational value, content vs. medium, and ease of use.

Instructional materials will first be judged in a school and classroom setting. All products submitted as instructional materials must include a teacher guide for use in the classroom.

For all categories where entries appear as a website: the entry must be available online at the web site at the time of the judging. Entries that are available as electronic files (e.g. pdf's) must be available online for downloading at a URL specified at the time of entry.

For categories delivered via email, the product must be emailed to awards@AEPweb.org

At the judges’ discretion, an exceptional piece may be elevated for Golden Lamp consideration. To ensure that your product is judged for a Golden Lamp award, you must enter that competition separately.

Golden Lamp
In addition to encompassing content and design that transcends the best in its category, Golden Lamp pieces are critiqued on their fulfillment of their educational mission. To ensure that your product is judged as a Golden Lamp, you must enter this program separately from the Distinguished Achievement Awards.

Beacon Awards
All qualifying entries are sent to our national panel of screening judges. Experts in graphics, marketing, and education sales critique the entries based on creative artwork, engaging content, and overall marketing objectives. Selected entries are passed on to the final judging certifying committee, where the finalists and winners are reviewed and certified, and the Gold Beacon are chosen.

Selecting Judges
Judges are selected from a pool of educational publishing professionals (writers, editors, designers, educators, product developers, and marketing directors), who have themselves received accolades for their work. Each year, the pool of judges grows and changes, according to interest and availability. The judges are given a period to review entries that apply to their designated area of expertise. They are provided with specific evaluation criteria [Adobe PDF] and guidelines that have been developed and are updated each year by an advisory committee.

Prior to reviewing the entries, judges are asked to read and adopt the following pledge:

Judge’s Pledge

To disregard the size, reputation or one’s relationship with a company in evaluating entries.
To review an entry through the eyes of the intended audience without regard to the packaging, political context, or PR materials.
To think broadly and with an open mind about all materials and what they can be for education.
To be respectful of the group decision-making process and to state one’s opinion without undermining the need for consensus.
To recuse oneself from the judging to avoid an unfair or inequitable evaluation.