We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby Associate Director Ed. Tech Solutions
[Image]
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the update. Here is my feedback on the proposed paths forward:
* Option 1: If I understand this option correctly, it would require one massive state instance of Nearpod (administratively) where UEN manages all licenses, permissions, and school assignments since it bypasses LEA admins. If true, that doesn’t seem manageable for UEN. Would it just be a first-come, first-served free-for-all until the 83,300 licenses ran out?
* Option 2: I don’t currently have district funds available for Nearpod licenses, but this option would at least help individual schools secure a discounted price if they use their site budgets.
* Option 3: I’m interested in this route. A competitive RFP might encourage Nearpod to be more flexible in their pricing. It also opens the door to alternatives like Pear Deck, which offers similar functionality at what might be a better value.
Thanks,
Christopher Larsen
Director of Educational Technology
Granite School District
From: Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM To: software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org Subject: [Software-advisory-k12] Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby Associate Director Ed. Tech Solutions
[Image]
Chris thanks for your reply. Honestly, I have no idea how we would implement #1. It is so few license I just don’t think it is possible without leaving out a large number of schools. I also don’t see UEN managing the entire instance. It would be more like you get funding for one middle school… There is just not a whole lot we can do with that few licenses.
From what I have heard most districts don’t have funding for option #2. So yes, option 3 seems more viable.
I would love to hear from everyone else. Thanks.
Justin Brooksby Associate Director Ed. Tech Solutions
[Image] From: Christopher S Larsen cslarsen@graniteschools.org Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:38 AM To: Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org, software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org Subject: Re: Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the update. Here is my feedback on the proposed paths forward:
* Option 1: If I understand this option correctly, it would require one massive state instance of Nearpod (administratively) where UEN manages all licenses, permissions, and school assignments since it bypasses LEA admins. If true, that doesn’t seem manageable for UEN. Would it just be a first-come, first-served free-for-all until the 83,300 licenses ran out?
* Option 2: I don’t currently have district funds available for Nearpod licenses, but this option would at least help individual schools secure a discounted price if they use their site budgets.
* Option 3: I’m interested in this route. A competitive RFP might encourage Nearpod to be more flexible in their pricing. It also opens the door to alternatives like Pear Deck, which offers similar functionality at what might be a better value.
Thanks,
Christopher Larsen
Director of Educational Technology
Granite School District
From: Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM To: software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org Subject: [Software-advisory-k12] Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby Associate Director Ed. Tech Solutions
[Image]
I'm most supportive of Option 3. We also do not have a district budget to cover the costs of Nearpod, so we would welcome licensing at a reduced rate, and would likely not pursue any options for whole-district licensing.
-Darren
--
*Darren E. Draper, Ed.D.* Administrator of Technology and Digital Innovation Email: darrendraper@alpinedistrict.org Phone: 801-610-8564
On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:55 AM Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org wrote:
Chris thanks for your reply. Honestly, I have no idea how we would implement #1. It is so few license I just don’t think it is possible without leaving out a large number of schools. I also don’t see UEN managing the entire instance. It would be more like you get funding for one middle school… There is just not a whole lot we can do with that few licenses.
From what I have heard most districts don’t have funding for option #2. So yes, option 3 seems more viable.
I would love to hear from everyone else. Thanks.
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] *From: *Christopher S Larsen cslarsen@graniteschools.org *Date: *Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:38 AM *To: *Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org, software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org *Subject: *Re: Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the update. Here is my feedback on the proposed paths forward:
- Option 1: If I understand this option correctly, it would require
one massive state instance of Nearpod (administratively) where UEN manages all licenses, permissions, and school assignments since it bypasses LEA admins. If true, that doesn’t seem manageable for UEN. Would it just be a first-come, first-served free-for-all until the 83,300 licenses ran out?
- Option 2: I don’t currently have district funds available for
Nearpod licenses, but this option would at least help individual schools secure a discounted price if they use their site budgets.
- Option 3: I’m interested in this route. A competitive RFP might
encourage Nearpod to be more flexible in their pricing. It also opens the door to alternatives like Pear Deck, which offers similar functionality at what might be a better value.
Thanks,
*Christopher Larsen*
Director of Educational Technology
Granite School District *From: *Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org *Date: *Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM *To: *software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org < software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org> *Subject: *[Software-advisory-k12] Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] _______________________________________________ Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
We have no funding for NearPod because of the other software we unexpectedly had to move into the general budget. This is a tricky set of circumstances and we appreciate all you are doing to help us.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 9:02 AM Darren Draper < darrendraper@alpinedistrict.org> wrote:
I'm most supportive of Option 3. We also do not have a district budget to cover the costs of Nearpod, so we would welcome licensing at a reduced rate, and would likely not pursue any options for whole-district licensing.
-Darren
--
*Darren E. Draper, Ed.D.* Administrator of Technology and Digital Innovation Email: darrendraper@alpinedistrict.org Phone: 801-610-8564
On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:55 AM Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org wrote:
Chris thanks for your reply. Honestly, I have no idea how we would implement #1. It is so few license I just don’t think it is possible without leaving out a large number of schools. I also don’t see UEN managing the entire instance. It would be more like you get funding for one middle school… There is just not a whole lot we can do with that few licenses.
From what I have heard most districts don’t have funding for option #2.
So yes, option 3 seems more viable.
I would love to hear from everyone else. Thanks.
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] *From: *Christopher S Larsen cslarsen@graniteschools.org *Date: *Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:38 AM *To: *Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org, software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org *Subject: *Re: Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the update. Here is my feedback on the proposed paths forward:
- Option 1: If I understand this option correctly, it would require
one massive state instance of Nearpod (administratively) where UEN manages all licenses, permissions, and school assignments since it bypasses LEA admins. If true, that doesn’t seem manageable for UEN. Would it just be a first-come, first-served free-for-all until the 83,300 licenses ran out?
- Option 2: I don’t currently have district funds available for
Nearpod licenses, but this option would at least help individual schools secure a discounted price if they use their site budgets.
- Option 3: I’m interested in this route. A competitive RFP might
encourage Nearpod to be more flexible in their pricing. It also opens the door to alternatives like Pear Deck, which offers similar functionality at what might be a better value.
Thanks,
*Christopher Larsen*
Director of Educational Technology
Granite School District *From: *Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org *Date: *Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM *To: *software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org < software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org> *Subject: *[Software-advisory-k12] Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] _______________________________________________ Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
I agree with the consensus on option #3. I know I have a few schools that would move to purchase at a discounted rate.
Jared
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 9:03 AM Darren Draper < darrendraper@alpinedistrict.org> wrote:
I'm most supportive of Option 3. We also do not have a district budget to cover the costs of Nearpod, so we would welcome licensing at a reduced rate, and would likely not pursue any options for whole-district licensing.
-Darren
--
*Darren E. Draper, Ed.D.* Administrator of Technology and Digital Innovation Email: darrendraper@alpinedistrict.org Phone: 801-610-8564
On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:55 AM Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org wrote:
Chris thanks for your reply. Honestly, I have no idea how we would implement #1. It is so few license I just don’t think it is possible without leaving out a large number of schools. I also don’t see UEN managing the entire instance. It would be more like you get funding for one middle school… There is just not a whole lot we can do with that few licenses.
From what I have heard most districts don’t have funding for option #2.
So yes, option 3 seems more viable.
I would love to hear from everyone else. Thanks.
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] *From: *Christopher S Larsen cslarsen@graniteschools.org *Date: *Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:38 AM *To: *Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org, software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org *Subject: *Re: Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the update. Here is my feedback on the proposed paths forward:
- Option 1: If I understand this option correctly, it would require
one massive state instance of Nearpod (administratively) where UEN manages all licenses, permissions, and school assignments since it bypasses LEA admins. If true, that doesn’t seem manageable for UEN. Would it just be a first-come, first-served free-for-all until the 83,300 licenses ran out?
- Option 2: I don’t currently have district funds available for
Nearpod licenses, but this option would at least help individual schools secure a discounted price if they use their site budgets.
- Option 3: I’m interested in this route. A competitive RFP might
encourage Nearpod to be more flexible in their pricing. It also opens the door to alternatives like Pear Deck, which offers similar functionality at what might be a better value.
Thanks,
*Christopher Larsen*
Director of Educational Technology
Granite School District *From: *Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org *Date: *Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM *To: *software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org < software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org> *Subject: *[Software-advisory-k12] Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] _______________________________________________ Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
Weber feels the same. Option 3. We'll be asking schools to cover their own Nearpod, probably--so reduced rate would be beneficial. Thanks!
*Director *- Digital Teaching & Learning/Online Learning *Weber School District* 801.476.5476
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 9:02 AM Darren Draper < darrendraper@alpinedistrict.org> wrote:
I'm most supportive of Option 3. We also do not have a district budget to cover the costs of Nearpod, so we would welcome licensing at a reduced rate, and would likely not pursue any options for whole-district licensing.
-Darren
--
*Darren E. Draper, Ed.D.* Administrator of Technology and Digital Innovation Email: darrendraper@alpinedistrict.org Phone: 801-610-8564
On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:55 AM Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org wrote:
Chris thanks for your reply. Honestly, I have no idea how we would implement #1. It is so few license I just don’t think it is possible without leaving out a large number of schools. I also don’t see UEN managing the entire instance. It would be more like you get funding for one middle school… There is just not a whole lot we can do with that few licenses.
From what I have heard most districts don’t have funding for option #2.
So yes, option 3 seems more viable.
I would love to hear from everyone else. Thanks.
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] *From: *Christopher S Larsen cslarsen@graniteschools.org *Date: *Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:38 AM *To: *Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org, software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org *Subject: *Re: Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the update. Here is my feedback on the proposed paths forward:
- Option 1: If I understand this option correctly, it would require
one massive state instance of Nearpod (administratively) where UEN manages all licenses, permissions, and school assignments since it bypasses LEA admins. If true, that doesn’t seem manageable for UEN. Would it just be a first-come, first-served free-for-all until the 83,300 licenses ran out?
- Option 2: I don’t currently have district funds available for
Nearpod licenses, but this option would at least help individual schools secure a discounted price if they use their site budgets.
- Option 3: I’m interested in this route. A competitive RFP might
encourage Nearpod to be more flexible in their pricing. It also opens the door to alternatives like Pear Deck, which offers similar functionality at what might be a better value.
Thanks,
*Christopher Larsen*
Director of Educational Technology
Granite School District *From: *Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org *Date: *Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM *To: *software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org < software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org> *Subject: *[Software-advisory-k12] Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] _______________________________________________ Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
Thank you for the update, Justin.
I do not see option #1 as a viable and equitable solution.
I do think that option #2 is both equitable and viable. I understand that not all LEAs will choose to make the purchase at $3 per student, but the subsidy would help. Are there any other licensing models available, such as teacher licenses, or site licenses?
I am not opposed to an RFP. I do not believe that a vendor should have legislation written specific for their product, so if there are alternatives to explore, that would be great.
Best,
Joe B. Wright Executive Director
520 West 800 South Cedar City, Utah 84720 www.sedck12.org Phone: (435) 586-2865 Cell: (435) 689-1705
On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org wrote:
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] _______________________________________________ Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
I concur with Joe B. I like Option #2 or an RFP.
NUES would be happy to help with the lift of an RFP should that be the group's preferred route (my guess is that the other RESAs would assist, as well).
Thanks,
piper riddle | Executive Director Northeastern Utah Educational Services
Piper Riddle, Ed.S.
35 South Main Street
Heber City, UT 84032
435-654-1921 office
801-647-7322 cell
Schedule to meet with mehttps://calendly.com/piper-nues/meet-with-piper-nues (not APPEL)
Schedule APPEL meetinghttps://calendly.com/piper-nues/appel-candidate-meeting
[cid:cfd2f2ca-02af-4cb1-ad14-125771d3ee4e]NUES proudly serves 14 LEAs: Daggett, Duchesne, Morgan, North Summit, Park City, Rich, Soldier Hollow, South Summit, Uintah, Uintah River, Terra Academy, Wasatch, Weilenmann, Winter Sports School
________________________________ From: Joe B. Wright joeb@sedck12.org Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:34 AM To: Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org Cc: software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org Subject: [Software-advisory-k12] Re: Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
Thank you for the update, Justin.
I do not see option #1 as a viable and equitable solution.
I do think that option #2 is both equitable and viable. I understand that not all LEAs will choose to make the purchase at $3 per student, but the subsidy would help. Are there any other licensing models available, such as teacher licenses, or site licenses?
I am not opposed to an RFP. I do not believe that a vendor should have legislation written specific for their product, so if there are alternatives to explore, that would be great.
Best,
Joe B. Wright Executive Director
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wop7iqXiG05RJ2uyQAmY__Y3gBU...] 520 West 800 South Cedar City, Utah 84720 www.sedck12.orghttp://www.sedck12.org Phone: (435) 586-2865 Cell: (435) 689-1705 [https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4xumOSceaCM6mfNMKkWuXcA_HkC9...]
On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM Justin Brooksby <jbrooksby@uen.orgmailto:jbrooksby@uen.org> wrote:
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[Image]
_______________________________________________ Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.orgmailto:software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.orgmailto:software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
Thanks for all your feedback. We are going to meet with the Nearpod team soon and attempt to put additional pressure to lower pricing. I think everyone indicated they were good with option 3, so this pressure might include an RFP. There is a possibility that another competitor wins out on that though. I will keep you all updated as we make progress.
Justin Brooksby Associate Director Ed. Tech Solutions
[Image] From: Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM To: software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org Subject: [Software-advisory-k12] Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby Associate Director Ed. Tech Solutions
[Image]
I would submit from the SESC region that either 2 or 3 would be best. Where no funding has been set aside for student licenses, #2 wouldn't be great, but still an option for schools that could use their Land Trust funds. But #3 may produce better results and options. I support #3, with #2 as a backup.
John Hughes | Executive Director
Southeast Education Service Center
685 East 200 South
Price, Utah 84501
Office: (435) 637-1173
Cell: (801) 836-0698 <8018360698>
mySESCutah.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s), may contain confidential and/or privileged information, and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 12:38 PM Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org wrote:
Thanks for all your feedback. We are going to meet with the Nearpod team soon and attempt to put additional pressure to lower pricing. I think everyone indicated they were good with option 3, so this pressure might include an RFP. There is a possibility that another competitor wins out on that though. I will keep you all updated as we make progress.
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] *From: *Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org *Date: *Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM *To: *software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org < software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org> *Subject: *[Software-advisory-k12] Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby
Associate Director
Ed. Tech Solutions
[image: Image] _______________________________________________ Software-advisory-k12 mailing list -- software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-advisory-k12-leave@lists.uen.org
Canyons would also support option 3.
While we are concerned about the potential extra work that our teachers would have to take on to rebuild lessons if a different platform was selected in an RFP, it would be difficult to justify the pricing of $3 per student in option 2 given the current usage as a district and limited budgets for this purpose.
Thanks,
[Logo, icon Description automatically generated] Katie Gebhardt Digital Teaching & Learning Specialist Instructional Supports Department
📞 (385)226-4522 🗓 Schedule an appointmenthttps://calendly.com/katie-gebhardt/experiment1et?back=1&month=2022-07
📧 katie.gebhardt@canyonsdistrict.orgmailto:katie.gebhardt@canyonsdistrict.org
From: Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 12:39 PM To: software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org Subject: [Software-advisory-k12] Re: Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
Thanks for all your feedback. We are going to meet with the Nearpod team soon and attempt to put additional pressure to lower pricing. I think everyone indicated they were good with option 3, so this pressure might include an RFP. There is a possibility that another competitor wins out on that though. I will keep you all updated as we make progress.
Justin Brooksby Associate Director Ed. Tech Solutions
[Image] From: Justin Brooksby jbrooksby@uen.org Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10:01 AM To: software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org Subject: [Software-advisory-k12] Nearpod Licensing Options – Feedback Requested
We’ve continued discussions with the Nearpod team, but unfortunately, we have not made much progress. One of the primary challenges is how licensing must be structured. We had initially been told that Silver, Gold, and Premium subscription tiers were available; however, they have since clarified that those options are no longer being offered to us.
As things currently stand, we have a few potential paths forward:
Option 1: Use the $500,000 to purchase licenses directly. At the current rate, this would cover approximately 83,300 student licenses statewide. Because licensing must be applied at the school level, we cannot distribute smaller portions (e.g., 500 licenses) to an LEA. In practice, this means some LEAs—such as single-school charters—could be fully funded, while larger districts may only be able to cover one or a few schools.
Option 2: Apply the $500,000 as a subsidy and have Nearpod offer a reduced rate of $3 per student to LEAs. Licenses would still need to be purchased at the school level under this model.
Option 3: Issue an RFP to explore whether we can secure a lower cost from Nearpod or open the opportunity to other vendors. I believe this is a viable option, though we would need to confirm alignment with legislative requirements.
I would appreciate your feedback on these options. Since this funding is intended to support your needs, I want to ensure we move in a direction that is most beneficial and practical for you.
Thank you,
Justin Brooksby Associate Director Ed. Tech Solutions
[Image]
software-advisory-k12@lists.uen.org
-
Christopher S Larsen -
Darren Draper -
Gebhardt, Katie -
Jared Covili -
Joe B. Wright -
John Hughes -
Justin Brooksby -
Nick Harris -
Piper Riddle -
Tony Campbell