– Sushma Bharath, Independent Education Strategist

One of the biggest stories in Indian K–12 education today is the acquisition of Pathways School Gurugram by KKR-backed Lighthouse Learning. Beyond the headline valuation, the deal has left many people asking the same question:

“Wait… I thought schools in India couldn’t be run for profit?”

It’s a fair question.

Before I go any further, a caveat: I’m not involved with either Pathways or Lighthouse Learning, nor have I seen the legal agreements behind this transaction. So this isn’t an explanation of their exact structure. It’s simply an attempt to explain, in plain English, how a deal like this can happen.

Traditionally, schools in India have been established through charitable trusts or societies. In many cases, the trust owns the land, runs the school, collects the fees, employs the teachers, holds the educational affiliations, and owns the school’s assets.

A trust has no shareholders, which means there’s nothing for an investor to buy.

Private equity firms don’t invest in buildings; they invest in companies. They buy equity, value businesses based on their future cash flows, and eventually look for an exit. A charitable trust simply isn’t designed for that.

What Pathways appears to have done differently is create a corporate operating entity, Sarla Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Rather than treating the school as a single legal entity, the educational functions and the business functions appear to have been separated.

Think of the educational side as including regulatory compliance and permissions, board affiliations, and the formal running of the school. The business side includes the brand, admissions, marketing, technology, finance, HR, and management.

Those business functions can sit within a company. So when Lighthouse Learning acquired Pathways, it wasn’t buying a charitable trust; it was buying equity in a company.

Exactly how responsibilities, revenues, and contracts are divided between those entities isn’t public, and it’s important not to speculate. But the principle is what matters: the structure created an investable business.

To me, that’s the real insight from this deal.

It isn’t about making education “for profit.” It’s about separating education from the business of running education.

Whether that’s ultimately good or bad remains to be seen.

On one hand, schools need capital. Great teachers, facilities, innovation, and expansion all require investment. Founder succession is also becoming a real challenge across Indian education, and institutional ownership may help solve some of those problems.

On the other hand, private equity typically operates on investment horizons of five to seven years. Great schools are built over decades. If EBITDA becomes the primary measure of success, decisions about counselling, scholarships, the arts, or class sizes inevitably become financial decisions as well as educational ones.

Perhaps that’s the bigger question this deal raises.

For years, Indian education has asked whether institutional capital could enter school education.

Now that it seemingly can, the more interesting question is whether institutional capital can preserve what makes—and keeps—a great school truly great.

Also Read: Why AI-Integrated MBA Programmes Are the Future of Management Education