NetNZ’s future sustainability has been an ongoing focus for the board and leadership team over the last two years. This has caused all involved to deeply reflect on not only what this is all about, but what makes it work.

When we formed NetNZ in 2014 we had an ambitious vision for an organisation that would enable anyone, anywhere to access high quality learning. To enable this, we shifted our organisational structures away from informal clusters of schools to a legal entity (or entities). An organisation that would work on behalf of member schools. We removed a lot of the responsibility for the environment from school principals to a board and executive team. Schools would still be represented through the NetNZ Charitable Trust which would own a NetNZ Ltd. The operation of NetNZ would sit with the company. The Trust would act as guardian of the vision.

However, a limited liability company wasn’t our first choice as a structure. While we recognised some commercial possibilities, we wanted that to be ‘owned’ by the collective of members. A co-operative is what we actually wanted. Something that all members had a strong stake in. Unfortunately the difficulty in schools owning shares meant the co-operative path could not be pursued. So, we adjusted.

And, over time we have enabled a far more sustainable environment for networked learning. We achieved greater coherence in the teaching and learning and secured a strong financial foundation for future development.

It’s interesting to compare the numbers from the 2015 annual report with 2024.

Another notable stat is the number of member schools not offering a teacher / course. What we call “receiving only”. Three schools did this in 2015, 13 in 2024. This has reached 17 in 2025. This is not a desirable trend in a system approach to meeting diverse school curriculum needs when that system is founded on schools as providers.

In between these particular years there have been peaks and troughs. Times where numbers were higher and times where they were lower. We can point to growth and maturity in the organisaton itself, the system and processes to support networked learning and in the learning experience for ākonga. Overall, while we have achieved much and sustained what we have, to what extent we have grown participation in the environment is questionable. 

There are also some concerning trends that have developed over time. One is mentioned earlier. Another is whether our approach has encouraged a transactional environment. One which perhaps runs counter to what makes this work well – which is collective ownership. To understanding that all schools share similar challenges. A networked approach asks schools to work together to solve these common problems. To do so by being part of a system approach to solving them. This works because it means everyone has a responsibility to each other to ensure it does work.

As a networked environment, NetNZ is all about supplementing and enriching the local. We are not a Virtual School and we are not trying to replace schools with online learning. We are supplementing. It is a blended environment which seeks to strengthen the local school and the local community. It not only does this through the curriculum provided, but also through strengthening the local participating teacher(s), and participating learners. This is achieved in partnership with schools who also partner with each other. It is a reciprocal environment in which everyone benefits.

In our emerging environment, this is a key message. In thinking about NetNZ’s future we need to deeply consider how we best enable this environment. What are the dispositions, behaviours and structures that will support this?

This is all to be considered within a shifting, uncertain environment which will continue to challenge schools and public education.

We propose that the future development of NetNZ needs to firmly rest on the principles of a ‘co-operative’. If not legally, then in its behaviour.

These are generally the principles which guide co-operatives.

What would operating in this way actually mean? What would be different? What would remain? These are the questions we must answer with our members this year.