Nearly a week after Kolkata-headquartered Crizac raised Rs. 860 crore (£73.9 million) through its initial public offering (IPO), structured as an offer for sale (OFS) by promoters Pinky Agarwal and Manish Agarwal, the company’s shares surged in domestic stock markets on Wednesday, at nearly a 15% premium above the issue price of Rs. 245. 

The IPO’s success – managed by Equirus Capital Private Limited and Anand Rathi Advisors Limited – along with its strong performance on the National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange, is expected to fuel Crizac’s expansion into new destinations and services.

“The reason we went for a full OFS, or fully secondary, as we might say in the UK, is because the company’s balance sheet is very strong. We already have sufficient capital to support our expansion plans. Our focus remains on diversifying globally, which has been our strength over the past five years and will continue to be our strength in the future,” Christopher Nagle, CEO of Crizac, told The PIE News. 

While an OFS means that the company, in this case, Crizac, did not raise new capital through the IPO – with proceeds instead going to existing shareholders, namely the Agarwals – its entry into the financial markets allows the company to publicly demonstrate “the scale, size, and operations of the company in a transparent way”, according to Nagle.

Crizac’s decision to go public comes as it looks to expand, beyond student recruitment, into areas such as student loans, housing, and other services. 

The company is also eyeing new geographies and high-growth markets within India.

We also see great potential and can add great value in other destinations like Ireland, the USA, and Australia
_{^{Vikash Agarwal, Crizac}}

“We have a strong plan to expand across cities in India. Even though we are already one of the biggest recruiters for India-UK, we believe there’s still significant room for growth,” stated Vikash Agarwal, chairman and managing director, Crizac. 

“We also see great potential and can add great value in other destinations like Ireland, the USA, and Australia,” he added. 

Crizac, which reported a total income of Rs. 849.5 crore (£78m) in FY25, currently works with over 10,000 agents and some 173 international institutions.

Tthrough its stock market listing, the company aims to strengthen confidence among it partners.

“The fact that we are listed doesn’t change how we interact with agents, but we believe it will lead to even greater trust from universities and agent partners alike, thanks to the level of diligence and corporate governance that is now required of us,” stated Nagle.

With a market capitalisation of Rs 5,379.84 crore (nearly £555m), Crizac’s solid financial track record and low debt levels have been key drivers behind its IPO, even as changing policies in major study destinations continue to influence the sector.

As destinations like Australia hike visa fees, the UK increases compliance among institutions and considers imposing levies on international student fees, the US tightens vetting and eyes visa time limits, and Canada raises financial thresholds amid falling study permits, it remains to be seen how students from India, Nigeria, and China will navigate their study abroad choices in the coming years. 

According to government data presented in the Indian Parliament, there was a nearly 15% decline in Indian students going abroad, largely in the major four destinations, while countries like Germany, Russia, France, Ireland, and New Zealand saw increased interest.

However, despite the downturn, Crizac is confident that its move will inspire other Indian education companies to create value on the global stage. 

“Being the first listed company in this space will unlock significant value for the industry. We believe many are already watching our listing closely, and there will be a lot others going public from this sector now,” stated Agarwal. 

The New York legislature recently passed the Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (SB6953B) (“RAISE Act”).  The bill awaits signature by New York Governor Kathy Hochul.

Applicability and Relevant Definitions

The RAISE Act applies to “large developers,” which is defined as a person that has trained at least one frontier model and has spent over $100 million in compute costs in aggregate in training frontier models. 

• “Frontier model” means either (1) an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained using greater than 10°26 computational operations (e.g., integer or floating-point operations), the compute cost of which exceeds $100 million; or (2) an AI model produced by applying knowledge distillation to a frontier model, provided that the compute cost for such model produced by applying knowledge distillation exceeds $5 million.
• “Knowledge distillation” is defined as any supervised learning technique that uses a larger AI model or the output of a larger AI model to train a smaller AI model with similar or equivalent capabilities as the larger AI model.

The RAISE Act imposes the following obligations and restrictions on large developers:  

• Prohibition on Frontier Models that Create Unreasonable Risk of Critical Harm: The RAISE Act prohibits large developers from deploying a frontier model if doing so would create an unreasonable risk of “critical harm.”

  • “Critical harm” is defined as the death or serious injury of 100 or more people, or at least $1 billion in damage to rights in money or property, caused or materially enabled by a large developer’s use, storage, or release of a frontier model through (1) the creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon; or (2) an AI model engaging in conduct that (i) acts with no meaningful human intervention and (ii) would, if committed by a human, constitute a crime under the New York Penal Code that requires intent, recklessness, or gross negligence, or the solicitation or aiding and abetting of such a crime.

• Pre-Deployment Documentation and Disclosures: Before deploying a frontier model, large developers must:

  • (1) implement a written safety and security protocol;
  • (2) retain an unredacted copy of the safety and security protocol, including records and dates of any updates or revisions, for as long as the frontier model is deployed plus five years;
  • (3) conspicuously publish a redacted copy of the safety and security protocol and provide a copy of such redacted protocol to the New York Attorney General (“AG”) and the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (“DHS”) (as well as grant the AG access to the unredacted protocol upon request);
  • (4) record and retain for as long as the frontier model is deployed plus five years information on the specific tests and test results used in any assessment of the frontier model that provides sufficient detail for third parties to replicate the testing procedure; and
  • (5) implement appropriate safeguards to prevent unreasonable risk of critical harm posed by the frontier model.

• Safety and Security Protocol Annual Review: A large developer must conduct an annual review of its safety and security protocol to account for any changes to the capabilities of its frontier models and industry best practices and make any necessary modifications to protocol. For material modifications, the large developer must conspicuously publish a copy of such protocol with appropriate redactions (as described above).  
• Reporting Safety Incidents: A large developer must disclose each safety incident affecting a frontier model to the AG and DHS within 72 hours of the large developer learning of the safety incident or facts sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that a safety incident occurred.

  • “Safety incident” is defined as a known incidence of critical harm or one of the following incidents that provides demonstrable evidence of an increased risk of critical harm: (1) a frontier model autonomously engaging in behavior other than at the request of a user; (2) theft, misappropriation, malicious use, inadvertent release, unauthorized access, or escape of the model weights of a frontier model; (3) the critical failure of any technical or administrative controls, including controls limiting the ability to modify a frontier model; or (4) unauthorized use of a frontier model. The disclosure must include (1) the date of the safety incident; (2) the reasons the incident qualifies as a safety incident; and (3) a short and plain statement describing the safety incident.

If enacted, the RAISE Act would take effect 90 days after being signed into law.

The number of school suspensions and exclusions in England has reached its highest level since 2006, Department for Education figures show.

There were 954,952 suspensions in state schools in 2023/24 – a 21% increase on the previous year – while exclusions also rose 16% to 10,885.

While secondary school pupils comprised most suspensions, more than 100,000 were primary age – a number that has grown significantly.

A suspended pupil must stay out of school for a fixed period of up to 45 days per school year, while those excluded are permanently removed. Individual pupils often account for more than one period of suspension.

The government says it is tackling the root causes of poor behaviour and is intensively supporting 500 schools with the worst behaviour.

Persistent disruptive behaviour was the most common reason pupils were sent home, accounting for half of all suspensions and 39% exclusions.

Nearly half of the suspensions were among pupils getting support for special educational needs – who were three times more likely to be suspended than their classmates.

Children on free school meals were also overrepresented, making up a quarter of the school population but 60% of suspensions.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary at school leaders’ union NAHT, said schools alone could not address the causes of poor behaviour.

“Schools have a duty to provide a safe environment for all pupils and only use suspensions and exclusions when other options to ensure this have been exhausted,” he said.

“The reasons for disruptive behaviour often lie beyond the school gates and have their roots in wider challenges, including everything from poverty to access to support with special educational needs and mental ill-health.”

The vast majority of suspensions – nine in 10 – occurred at secondary schools, with Year 9 having the highest rate.

But primary-age suspensions rose too, up 24% on the previous year.

The vast majority (88%) of pupils who were excluded at primary school were getting support for special educational needs, compared with 46% of excluded secondary school pupils.

Research from charity Chance UK, which supports families of excluded children in London, suggests that 90% of children who are excluded at primary school fail to pass GCSE English and maths.

Sophie Schmal, the charity’s director, said Thursday’s figures revealed a “very concerning picture” – particularly the rise in primary school suspensions.

“Early intervention has to mean early. We can’t wait until these children are teenagers to tackle this.”

Sarah – not her real name – is a mum of one in London. Her six-year-old son was suspended several times within his first few weeks at primary school for hitting other pupils and throwing things in class.

She said that even after school staff agreed that her son showed signs of autism, he continued to be sent out of class regularly and suspended, which made him feel “isolated”.

“Since he was three years old, my son has been labelled as the naughty and difficult kid when all he really needed was help,” she said.

“I sought help as soon as I recognised that he needed additional support. But rather than helping me immediately, they waited until it was an emergency.”

Sarah eventually managed to move her son to a different mainstream school where he is getting more support, she said.

Responding to the figures, early education minister Stephen Morgan said the Labour government had “wasted no time in tackling the root causes of poor behaviour”, including offering mental health support in every school and expanding free school meals.

He pointed to its new attendance and behaviour hubs, which will directly support the 500 schools that “need the most help”.

“We’re also continuing to listen to parents as we reform the SEND system, while already putting in place better and earlier support for speech and language needs, ADHD and autism,” Morgan added.