Q1. Could you start by giving us a brief overview of your professional background, particularly focusing on your expertise in the industry?

I’ve spent over four decades working in education, across both Indian and international contexts. Over the years, I’ve taken on a range of leadership roles, including Principal, School Director, IB Evaluator, and Cambridge Master Trainer, and I currently work as an Academic Consultant supporting national and international programmes.

My experience involves CBSE, ICSE, IB, and Cambridge systems, giving me a fairly holistic view of how these curricula work in practice, not just on paper. Much of my work has involved leading schools through change, whether that’s transitioning curricula, strengthening academic quality, developing leadership teams, or matching vision with classroom practice.

What has really guided my perspective is working closely with people at every level, teachers, senior leaders, boards, and the parent community. That has helped me understand where policy intentions meet classroom reality and where the gaps often lie.

 

Q2. From your lens as an Academic Consultant, what is the most significant policy execution gap you see in schools trying to align with NEP 2020?

From my lens as an Academic Consultant, the biggest gap in the execution of NEP 2020 is not resistance or lack of intent. It is the very human challenge of unlearning old habits while learning new ones.

Most schools genuinely believe in NEP 2020. They want to do the right thing for children. But the shift the policy asks for is very personal. It requires teachers, leaders, and even parents to pause and rethink what we really mean by good teaching, success, and learning.

This is how the gap quietly shows up.

Teachers are expected to change their approach, often without enough time, training, or ongoing support to practice and experiment. As a result, while schools talk about competency-based and experiential learning, many teachers return to familiar methods when under pressure.

Assessment is meant to become more humane and growth-oriented, yet marks continue to dominate. Not because schools don’t value holistic development but because families seek certainty, and marks still feel safe and familiar.

Professional development does happen, but it is often too fast, too broad, and too disconnected from real classrooms. Teachers leave inspired but unsure of how to translate ideas into Monday morning practice.

Leaders want change, yet they are holding legacy systems, timetables, examinations, and reporting formats, while also responding to the expectations of boards, parents, and regulators. Living in both worlds at once is exhausting.

The core issue is that policy is changing faster than people’s confidence can grow. NEP 2020 is not just an educational reform; it is also about building trust. Schools are asked to trust teachers, teachers to trust students, parents to trust the process, and leaders to focus on long-term growth instead of short-term results.

Until schools intentionally create space for slower change, shared reflection, coaching, and collective courage, agreement with NEP will remain well-intentioned but uneven. And that is not a failure. It is simply an honest reflection of where many systems are on their journey.

 

Q3. With the loosening of regulations for foreign universities/schools, do you see established local 'powerhouses' as potential acquisition targets or as defensive competitors?

With the gradual easing of regulations for foreign universities and schools, the conversation is commonly framed in binary terms: are India’s established institutions likely to become acquisition targets, or will they emerge as defensive competitors? From my perspective, this framing is too narrow.

Established Indian education “powerhouses” are likely to be both, and the distinction does not lie in their scale or legacy, but in their readiness to evolve.
For foreign institutions seeking a meaningful and sustainable presence in India, established local schools and universities offer far more than infrastructure. They bring regulatory maturity, deep community trust, operational durability, and a nuanced understanding of Indian families’ aspirations. These are assets that cannot be imported or replicated quickly. For this reason, strategic partnerships or acquisitions will be an attractive pathway for international players looking to enter the Indian market with credibility and speed.

At the same time, many Indian institutions are no longer positioned on the margins of global education. They already deliver international curricula, offer credible global pathways, and have developed pedagogical models that balance international mindedness with local relevance. Their strength lies in contextual intelligence, an understanding of learners, parents, and cultural expectations that external entrants often underestimate. This makes them not merely resilient but genuinely competitive.

The greater risk, in my view, is not to institutions that are confident and future-facing, but to those relying primarily on legacy. Size, brand recognition, or historical reputation alone will not ensure relevance in this new environment. Institutions that have not invested in professional governance, leadership development, and pedagogical renewal may find themselves vulnerable, not because of foreign entry, but because of internal stagnation.

What we are likely to see, therefore, is not widespread disruption but selective consolidation and thoughtful collaboration. Some Indian institutions will choose partnerships on their own terms; others will continue to grow independently, drawing on their firmly embedded strengths. In both cases, agency will remain firmly with those who have clarity of focus and the openness to adapt.

India is not a passive market; it is opening its doors to global education. It is an active, discerning ecosystem, one that will reward institutions, both Indian and international, that engage with humility, integrity, and a long-term commitment to learners.

 

Q4. We are seeing a massive shift toward CAIE (Cambridge) and IB in Tier 2 cities. Is this shift driven by a demand for global pedagogy? Do share your thoughts on this

What we’re seeing in Tier 2 cities is a very real shift, but I don’t think it’s merely about moving to international boards for the sake of it. It shows a shift in how parents think about learning and the kind of education they want for their children.

There is genuine interest in the pedagogy associated with International Baccalaureate and Cambridge Assessment International Education, especially the emphasis on thinking, communication, and grasp rather than memorisation. Parents are increasingly asking for learning spaces where children are encouraged to question, express ideas, and immerse more deeply in what they are learning.

But pedagogy is only part of the story.

For many families in Tier 2 cities, this shift is also about aspiration and reassurance. International curricula are seen as keeping options open—whether for higher education in India or abroad. They provide a sense of structure and continuity, particularly for parents who may be making these choices for the first time.

Trust plays a big role here. IB and Cambridge offer clearly defined frameworks, assessment standards, and expectations for teacher preparation. In cases where parents have experienced uneven school quality, that external benchmark matters.

At the same time, this is where schools need to be careful. Adopting an international curriculum without really engaging with its philosophy can lead to surface-level change, new terminology, new branding, but little difference in classroom practice. When that happens, the promise of global education isn’t realised.

What’s encouraging is when schools in Tier 2 cities approach this mindfully, using international approaches to strengthen teaching and learning while continuing to be based in their local context. When done well, these curricula don’t distance students from where they come from; they actually help them better understand it.

So yes, there is a growing move toward global pedagogy, but it’s tied just as much to aspiration, trust, and choice. The schools that will truly benefit are those that see this not as a quick transition, but as a long-term commitment to how learning happens.

 

Q5. Which 'classroom technologies' are schools actually renewing contracts for, and which are being discarded as 'shelf-ware'?  

What I’m seeing very clearly is that schools have become much more practical about technology. The question now is quite simple: Does this actually help in the classroom, or not? If it doesn’t, it doesn’t get renewed.

The tools that stay are the ones teachers use every day without thinking too much about them. Platforms like Google Classroom and Microsoft Teams continue to be used because they’re familiar, they work, and they fit naturally into the flow of teaching. Teachers don’t have to keep relearning them, students manage them easily, and parents understand what they’re for.

Schools are also holding on to tools that actually help teachers better understand learning. If a platform supports feedback, helps track progress, or makes assessment more manageable, it’s seen as worth keeping. The same goes for resources that are clearly aligned to the curriculum, whether IB, Cambridge, or national boards. If it fits what teachers are already doing, it survives. Another area that’s getting attention is teacher workload. Tools that make planning, sharing resources, or moderation easier are valued simply because teachers are stretched, and anything that saves time matters. What’s being dropped is equally revealing.

Standalone apps are usually the first to go. If something sits outside the main system, needs a separate login, or requires repeated training, it quickly falls out of use. Many schools also feel a bit burned by platforms which once promised big transformation but didn’t really change classroom practice. This includes some of the newer AI tools that look impressive but don’t add much depth to learning.

There’s also more honesty now around hardware. Expensive screens and devices are being questioned about whether they’re mostly used as whiteboards. If teachers don’t feel it adds real value, schools are happy to step away.

Data tools are another area where schools are pulling back. If a dashboard produces reports but doesn’t help teachers make better decisions, it stops feeling necessary.

The pattern is actually very consistent. If a tool supports good teaching, it stays. If it creates extra work or exists mainly to look innovative, it doesn’t.
In many ways, this feels like a healthy correction. Schools aren’t chasing shiny new things anymore. They’re choosing what genuinely supports teaching and learning.

 

Q6. If you were an investor looking at companies within the space, what critical question would you pose to their senior management?

If I were an investor looking at an education company, I’d start with one very straightforward question: If your product disappeared tomorrow, what would teachers actually struggle with?

Not what features would be missed, not what the dashboard shows, but what would become harder in a real classroom.

I’m listening to whether the leadership truly understands teaching and learning. Can they talk concretely on how teachers’ work changes because of their product? Does it save time, sharpen feedback, and support better conversations with students? Or is it something that sounds impressive but isn’t essential?

The way this question is answered matters more than the answer itself. Strong leadership doesn’t hide behind jargon. They speak comfortably with respect to classrooms, teachers, and constraints because they’ve taken the time to listen to them.

I’d also pay attention to whether they acknowledge limits. Education doesn’t scale like other sectors. It’s slow, relational, and deeply human. Leaders who recognise that those who talk about adoption, training, and trust, not just growth, tend to be more credible.

And finally, I’d want to know how close they still are to schools. Is the product shaped by ongoing classroom feedback, or mainly by what sells well in a pitch? Tools that last are usually the ones built with teachers, not just for buyers.

For me, the real test isn’t ambition or valuation. It’s whether the company would genuinely be missed by teachers and students if it weren’t there anymore.