Why international students love Sydney's in-demand public schools
A number of Sydney schools that have exceeded their enrolment cap do have international students, including Castle Hill, Cronulla, Prairiewood and Epping Boys high schools. They have been popular with students who come to Sydney to access the well-regarded Higher School Certificate curriculum.
In 2024, 33 international students attended Castle Hill High School, which is over capacity by 1043 students.
While those schools will honour agreements with existing students, the department said: 'NSW public schools can only take in international students when they have capacity. If a school has reached its enrolment cap, it cannot enrol new international students.'
International students in senior years pay about $19,000 each to study in Sydney, contributing about '$40 million a year' to the department's revenue, Wan said.
Between 2019 and 2024, Australia experienced a 23 per cent reduction in international school students. The number fell from 4551 in 2019 to 3500 in 2024.
Mechel Pikoulas, the principal of Strathfield Girls High School, which has 58 international students and is under capacity, said overseas students enrich classrooms.
'You have got the world in every classroom,' she said. 'You have that diversity in every classroom. They bring an incredible depth and intellectual quality [to the classroom]. They have academic rigour as well.
'There's definitely a lift in the academic push because they are coming with such high academic standards that lift our school across the board.'
Wan said it is also becoming increasingly difficult to find homestay families.
Families who once took in primary school and high school students are now turning to international university students, who pay more than school-aged children.
'There hasn't been as many families around. Higher education providers are offering crazy money per week for homestay families. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. It's putting more pressure on the supply of homestay.'
Wan said international students' parents use public primary and high schools as a pathway into Australian universities.
'They are impressed by Australia's education system,' he said. 'They know that our universities are amazing, and they know that our schools are a great way to get kids prepared and great results that will allow them to go on to university.
'They appreciate the different way we do things here. Students talk about the pressure they get back home, and families understand it's not sustainable – it's not the best environment for their child to thrive.'
Loading
Homestay provider Agnes Ong, of Global Experience, said some of the most in-demand areas among international parents are Hunters Hill, Strathfield, Burwood, Concord, Cabramatta, Kogarah and Mosman, but it is difficult to place students in some schools.
'Burwood and Strathfield is quite popular, but they are very strict [with catchment zones]. We are rarely able to place students because of that. There are not many families living in Burwood and Strathfield who are able to take under 18s,' Ong said.
'Some schools are quite flexible and allow students to be placed outside the catchment area as long as it's a reasonable travelling distance, up to 50 to 60 minutes. At the moment we have a lot of families in the St George, Beverley Hills, Northern Beaches, Canterbury and Parramatta areas.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
AUKUS defence pact 'being reviewed' by US government
The US government is reportedly reviewing the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the US. The decision to conduct a review has been reported by multiple news outlets including Reuters, which cited US defence officials without giving further details. The review will reportedly examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, according to the ABC which also cited a Pentagon source. AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. The deal is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is expected to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. At the time, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Mr Trump was supportive of the AUKUS deal. "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after a meeting with Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US regime has already called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent. Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s.
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
AUKUS defence pact 'being reviewed' by US government
The US government is reportedly reviewing the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the US. The decision to conduct a review has been reported by multiple news outlets including Reuters, which cited US defence officials without giving further details. The review will reportedly examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, according to the ABC which also cited a Pentagon source. AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. The deal is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is expected to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. At the time, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Mr Trump was supportive of the AUKUS deal. "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after a meeting with Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US regime has already called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent. Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
If we're doomed to incremental tax reform, we need to pick the best change first
The business pages are getting very upset about the government's new tax arrangements on superannuation balances over $3 million. It's fine to be annoyed. Nobody likes paying more tax, even if you are (*checks statistics*) very rich. And taxing unrealised gains is particularly annoying. What's not fine, however, is that the people attacking the Treasurer and suggesting that this reform will end the Australian economy as we know it are the same people who constantly wonder out loud: why won't the government implement more ambitious, wide-ranging tax reform? The answer is obvious: if this is how business commentators react to a relatively minor reform that only impacts very wealthy people, imagine the reaction to holistic tax reform which, if previous tax reviews are anything to go by, would involve abolishing negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and franking credit cash refunds, while increasing and broadening the GST and creating a super profits tax and a carbon tax. The result of hysterical backlashes like what we are seeing around superannuation is incremental tax reform: where governments pick off one reform every three years, if you're lucky. Reform at a snail's pace is a bad outcome. But it raises a key question: if we're going slow, what reform should be prioritised? The tax system is very broken, so there are plenty of options. But I would argue that there is one thing which makes many existing problems worse: trusts. To see why, I'm reminded of when a friend from Europe once asked me: how much tax do you pay on your income in Australia? It's a simple question. It should have a simple answer. Sadly, however, the answer is anything but simple. The answer goes something like this. If the income comes from a wage, then the top marginal tax rate is 47 per cent. If the income comes from renting out an investment property, the tax rate is probably negative if you have a mortgage (thanks to negative gearing) or still much less than your marginal rate if you don't have a mortgage. If the income comes out of (or is generated within) your superannuation account, it can be anything from your marginal rate to 22 per cent, 15 per cent or zero. If the income comes from a capital gain, the tax rate is 50 per cent, unless you held the asset more than 12 months (then the tax rate is 25 per cent) or if the asset is the family home (then the tax rate is zero). If the income is from a company (i.e. dividends), then the company pays 30 per cent and you only pay the difference between that and your marginal rate (thanks to franking credits) - unless your marginal rate is zero in which case the government gives you free money for some reason (thanks to franking credit cash refunds). If the income comes from an inheritance, the tax rate is zero. The list goes on and on. MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS: The moral of the story is that although, generally speaking, income should be taxed at the same rate regardless of where it comes from, the reality is that income is taxed at a patchwork of different rates. This is where trusts come in. Trusts, particularly when combined with a corporate structure, allow people to shift income from high tax channels to low tax channels. For example, if your taxable income is in the highest tax bracket and your partner's taxable income is zero, it would be better if any of your additional income goes to your partner rather than you since less tax will be paid. Trusts allow this to happen. Instead of the income being paid to you, it can be paid (tax free) into the trust. The trust can then distribute the money to your partner at their much lower marginal rate (or zero for the first $18,200). In sum, trusts (combined with a corporate structure) allow you take advantage of Australia's patchwork of tax rates. It is this patchwork of tax rates which is the core problem, but trusts are one of the key vehicles that allow people to exploit the problem. Trusts can purchase investment properties, they can purchase an owner-occupier property, they can purchase shares, bonds and currencies. When it comes time to cash-out those returns, the money can be directed to the person with the lowest tax rate, or it can be tied up for so long that by the time it gets paid out you are retired and your taxable income is low or zero. ANU Professor Bob Breunig has a clean solution: have a rule which says that any money which comes out of a trust is taxed at either the company income rate (30 per cent) or the recipient's marginal tax rate (up to 47 per cent), whichever is higher. As Professor Breunig notes, "this will disable most trust-related tax dodges without undermining trusts' legitimate roles". Reigning in trusts will raise billions each year. More importantly, it means we can reduce the burden on taxing workers while improving the integrity of our tax system. The business pages are getting very upset about the government's new tax arrangements on superannuation balances over $3 million. It's fine to be annoyed. Nobody likes paying more tax, even if you are (*checks statistics*) very rich. And taxing unrealised gains is particularly annoying. What's not fine, however, is that the people attacking the Treasurer and suggesting that this reform will end the Australian economy as we know it are the same people who constantly wonder out loud: why won't the government implement more ambitious, wide-ranging tax reform? The answer is obvious: if this is how business commentators react to a relatively minor reform that only impacts very wealthy people, imagine the reaction to holistic tax reform which, if previous tax reviews are anything to go by, would involve abolishing negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and franking credit cash refunds, while increasing and broadening the GST and creating a super profits tax and a carbon tax. The result of hysterical backlashes like what we are seeing around superannuation is incremental tax reform: where governments pick off one reform every three years, if you're lucky. Reform at a snail's pace is a bad outcome. But it raises a key question: if we're going slow, what reform should be prioritised? The tax system is very broken, so there are plenty of options. But I would argue that there is one thing which makes many existing problems worse: trusts. To see why, I'm reminded of when a friend from Europe once asked me: how much tax do you pay on your income in Australia? It's a simple question. It should have a simple answer. Sadly, however, the answer is anything but simple. The answer goes something like this. If the income comes from a wage, then the top marginal tax rate is 47 per cent. If the income comes from renting out an investment property, the tax rate is probably negative if you have a mortgage (thanks to negative gearing) or still much less than your marginal rate if you don't have a mortgage. If the income comes out of (or is generated within) your superannuation account, it can be anything from your marginal rate to 22 per cent, 15 per cent or zero. If the income comes from a capital gain, the tax rate is 50 per cent, unless you held the asset more than 12 months (then the tax rate is 25 per cent) or if the asset is the family home (then the tax rate is zero). If the income is from a company (i.e. dividends), then the company pays 30 per cent and you only pay the difference between that and your marginal rate (thanks to franking credits) - unless your marginal rate is zero in which case the government gives you free money for some reason (thanks to franking credit cash refunds). If the income comes from an inheritance, the tax rate is zero. The list goes on and on. MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS: The moral of the story is that although, generally speaking, income should be taxed at the same rate regardless of where it comes from, the reality is that income is taxed at a patchwork of different rates. This is where trusts come in. Trusts, particularly when combined with a corporate structure, allow people to shift income from high tax channels to low tax channels. For example, if your taxable income is in the highest tax bracket and your partner's taxable income is zero, it would be better if any of your additional income goes to your partner rather than you since less tax will be paid. Trusts allow this to happen. Instead of the income being paid to you, it can be paid (tax free) into the trust. The trust can then distribute the money to your partner at their much lower marginal rate (or zero for the first $18,200). In sum, trusts (combined with a corporate structure) allow you take advantage of Australia's patchwork of tax rates. It is this patchwork of tax rates which is the core problem, but trusts are one of the key vehicles that allow people to exploit the problem. Trusts can purchase investment properties, they can purchase an owner-occupier property, they can purchase shares, bonds and currencies. When it comes time to cash-out those returns, the money can be directed to the person with the lowest tax rate, or it can be tied up for so long that by the time it gets paid out you are retired and your taxable income is low or zero. ANU Professor Bob Breunig has a clean solution: have a rule which says that any money which comes out of a trust is taxed at either the company income rate (30 per cent) or the recipient's marginal tax rate (up to 47 per cent), whichever is higher. As Professor Breunig notes, "this will disable most trust-related tax dodges without undermining trusts' legitimate roles". Reigning in trusts will raise billions each year. More importantly, it means we can reduce the burden on taxing workers while improving the integrity of our tax system. The business pages are getting very upset about the government's new tax arrangements on superannuation balances over $3 million. It's fine to be annoyed. Nobody likes paying more tax, even if you are (*checks statistics*) very rich. And taxing unrealised gains is particularly annoying. What's not fine, however, is that the people attacking the Treasurer and suggesting that this reform will end the Australian economy as we know it are the same people who constantly wonder out loud: why won't the government implement more ambitious, wide-ranging tax reform? The answer is obvious: if this is how business commentators react to a relatively minor reform that only impacts very wealthy people, imagine the reaction to holistic tax reform which, if previous tax reviews are anything to go by, would involve abolishing negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and franking credit cash refunds, while increasing and broadening the GST and creating a super profits tax and a carbon tax. The result of hysterical backlashes like what we are seeing around superannuation is incremental tax reform: where governments pick off one reform every three years, if you're lucky. Reform at a snail's pace is a bad outcome. But it raises a key question: if we're going slow, what reform should be prioritised? The tax system is very broken, so there are plenty of options. But I would argue that there is one thing which makes many existing problems worse: trusts. To see why, I'm reminded of when a friend from Europe once asked me: how much tax do you pay on your income in Australia? It's a simple question. It should have a simple answer. Sadly, however, the answer is anything but simple. The answer goes something like this. If the income comes from a wage, then the top marginal tax rate is 47 per cent. If the income comes from renting out an investment property, the tax rate is probably negative if you have a mortgage (thanks to negative gearing) or still much less than your marginal rate if you don't have a mortgage. If the income comes out of (or is generated within) your superannuation account, it can be anything from your marginal rate to 22 per cent, 15 per cent or zero. If the income comes from a capital gain, the tax rate is 50 per cent, unless you held the asset more than 12 months (then the tax rate is 25 per cent) or if the asset is the family home (then the tax rate is zero). If the income is from a company (i.e. dividends), then the company pays 30 per cent and you only pay the difference between that and your marginal rate (thanks to franking credits) - unless your marginal rate is zero in which case the government gives you free money for some reason (thanks to franking credit cash refunds). If the income comes from an inheritance, the tax rate is zero. The list goes on and on. MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS: The moral of the story is that although, generally speaking, income should be taxed at the same rate regardless of where it comes from, the reality is that income is taxed at a patchwork of different rates. This is where trusts come in. Trusts, particularly when combined with a corporate structure, allow people to shift income from high tax channels to low tax channels. For example, if your taxable income is in the highest tax bracket and your partner's taxable income is zero, it would be better if any of your additional income goes to your partner rather than you since less tax will be paid. Trusts allow this to happen. Instead of the income being paid to you, it can be paid (tax free) into the trust. The trust can then distribute the money to your partner at their much lower marginal rate (or zero for the first $18,200). In sum, trusts (combined with a corporate structure) allow you take advantage of Australia's patchwork of tax rates. It is this patchwork of tax rates which is the core problem, but trusts are one of the key vehicles that allow people to exploit the problem. Trusts can purchase investment properties, they can purchase an owner-occupier property, they can purchase shares, bonds and currencies. When it comes time to cash-out those returns, the money can be directed to the person with the lowest tax rate, or it can be tied up for so long that by the time it gets paid out you are retired and your taxable income is low or zero. ANU Professor Bob Breunig has a clean solution: have a rule which says that any money which comes out of a trust is taxed at either the company income rate (30 per cent) or the recipient's marginal tax rate (up to 47 per cent), whichever is higher. As Professor Breunig notes, "this will disable most trust-related tax dodges without undermining trusts' legitimate roles". Reigning in trusts will raise billions each year. More importantly, it means we can reduce the burden on taxing workers while improving the integrity of our tax system. The business pages are getting very upset about the government's new tax arrangements on superannuation balances over $3 million. It's fine to be annoyed. Nobody likes paying more tax, even if you are (*checks statistics*) very rich. And taxing unrealised gains is particularly annoying. What's not fine, however, is that the people attacking the Treasurer and suggesting that this reform will end the Australian economy as we know it are the same people who constantly wonder out loud: why won't the government implement more ambitious, wide-ranging tax reform? The answer is obvious: if this is how business commentators react to a relatively minor reform that only impacts very wealthy people, imagine the reaction to holistic tax reform which, if previous tax reviews are anything to go by, would involve abolishing negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and franking credit cash refunds, while increasing and broadening the GST and creating a super profits tax and a carbon tax. The result of hysterical backlashes like what we are seeing around superannuation is incremental tax reform: where governments pick off one reform every three years, if you're lucky. Reform at a snail's pace is a bad outcome. But it raises a key question: if we're going slow, what reform should be prioritised? The tax system is very broken, so there are plenty of options. But I would argue that there is one thing which makes many existing problems worse: trusts. To see why, I'm reminded of when a friend from Europe once asked me: how much tax do you pay on your income in Australia? It's a simple question. It should have a simple answer. Sadly, however, the answer is anything but simple. The answer goes something like this. If the income comes from a wage, then the top marginal tax rate is 47 per cent. If the income comes from renting out an investment property, the tax rate is probably negative if you have a mortgage (thanks to negative gearing) or still much less than your marginal rate if you don't have a mortgage. If the income comes out of (or is generated within) your superannuation account, it can be anything from your marginal rate to 22 per cent, 15 per cent or zero. If the income comes from a capital gain, the tax rate is 50 per cent, unless you held the asset more than 12 months (then the tax rate is 25 per cent) or if the asset is the family home (then the tax rate is zero). If the income is from a company (i.e. dividends), then the company pays 30 per cent and you only pay the difference between that and your marginal rate (thanks to franking credits) - unless your marginal rate is zero in which case the government gives you free money for some reason (thanks to franking credit cash refunds). If the income comes from an inheritance, the tax rate is zero. The list goes on and on. MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS: The moral of the story is that although, generally speaking, income should be taxed at the same rate regardless of where it comes from, the reality is that income is taxed at a patchwork of different rates. This is where trusts come in. Trusts, particularly when combined with a corporate structure, allow people to shift income from high tax channels to low tax channels. For example, if your taxable income is in the highest tax bracket and your partner's taxable income is zero, it would be better if any of your additional income goes to your partner rather than you since less tax will be paid. Trusts allow this to happen. Instead of the income being paid to you, it can be paid (tax free) into the trust. The trust can then distribute the money to your partner at their much lower marginal rate (or zero for the first $18,200). In sum, trusts (combined with a corporate structure) allow you take advantage of Australia's patchwork of tax rates. It is this patchwork of tax rates which is the core problem, but trusts are one of the key vehicles that allow people to exploit the problem. Trusts can purchase investment properties, they can purchase an owner-occupier property, they can purchase shares, bonds and currencies. When it comes time to cash-out those returns, the money can be directed to the person with the lowest tax rate, or it can be tied up for so long that by the time it gets paid out you are retired and your taxable income is low or zero. ANU Professor Bob Breunig has a clean solution: have a rule which says that any money which comes out of a trust is taxed at either the company income rate (30 per cent) or the recipient's marginal tax rate (up to 47 per cent), whichever is higher. As Professor Breunig notes, "this will disable most trust-related tax dodges without undermining trusts' legitimate roles". Reigning in trusts will raise billions each year. More importantly, it means we can reduce the burden on taxing workers while improving the integrity of our tax system.
