Globally, mental distress is the leading cause of disease burden in young people aged 12–25 years, with as many as 50% experiencing such problems (McGorry, 2021). Unfortunately, the situation worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, with increases of 25% in anxiety and depression reported in 2020 (Santomauro et al., 2021). In response, the Australian Productivity Commission gave suggestions for addressing the wellbeing of young people within a school context. They recommend a more coordinated approach to the practices of school wellbeing, including the use of nationally consistent measures (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2020).

The Commission's recommendation is timely. According to a recent review by E. van Zyl, Gaffaney, Van der Vaart, J. Dik, and Donaldson (2023), Positive Psychology — the most applied discipline in school contexts — has been subject to 117 unique criticisms, which include a lack of proper theorising and problematic measurement. It is argued that these issues are “at the proverbial root cause of problems in positive psychology” (E. van Zyl et al., 2023, p. 19). Effectively measuring wellbeing nationally requires a coherent model of wellbeing, an agreed nomenclature, and appropriate measures. However, of the 83 options on the Victorian school ‘mental health’ menu, there is no agreed unifying definition for wellbeing, resilience, or their correlates, and no nationally consistent measures are currently in use. If this is a fair description of the current wellbeing landscape in Australian schools, then a critique from Ecclestone (2015) remains relevant. She observed that the research people employ to confirm the effectiveness of their wellbeing programs is usually fragmented, inconclusive, and methodologically flawed. As a result, the school wellbeing pond is overstocked with a range of introduced species that only serve to muddy the water.

Not only is the current understanding of student wellbeing and its measurement piecemeal and opaque, but a more concerning development is that ‘wellbeing’ practitioners in schools inadvertently promote unrealistic expectations. For example, the benefits of practising gratitude, empathy, and mindfulness are often touted as ways to permanently raise the average levels of wellbeing across a student cohort. In fact, some authors openly advocate that a successful wellbeing program will return “a significant shift in the mean level of well-being of the entire population” (Street, 2017, p. 50). This statement reveals a fatal flaw in understanding. It contradicts an established and potentially unifying theory, which uses both coherent nomenclature and empirical evidence to describe Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis (Cummins, 2017).

Central to the structure of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis is a composite affect called Homeostatically Protected Mood (HPMood; for a detailed explanation, see Cummins, 2020). HPMood is a feeling originating from the brain stem. It is a stable, low-intensity, object-free, neuro-physiologically generated positive mood state that forms a stable background to consciousness. This basic positivity catalyses motivation for life and is the major component of Subjective Wellbeing (SWB; Cummins, 2010; Cummins, 2022). Indeed, under normal living circumstances, it is the steady, genetically set level of HPMood which causes the level of SWB to be so stable (Anglim, Weinberg, & Cummins, 2015).

Not only is the level of HPMood genetically set for each person, but this level is also robustly maintained by various protective resources (Cummins et al., 2018; Cummins & Wooden, 2014). Some of these resources, such as habituation and adaptation, are internal and operate unconsciously. Other resources are external, such as money and personal relationships (Tunbridge, 2019).

Homeostasis theory is directly in conflict with the claims of positive psychology. The theory explains why it is pointless to expect that interventions like practising gratitude, empathy, or mindfulness will permanently elevate SWB above its genetically assigned level for each person. Such interventions are akin to attempting to raise a healthy person's core body temperature, which is also maintained under homeostatic control. Unfortunately, many groups working in schools are unaware of homeostasis. As a result, evangelists for the practice of gratitude, empathy and mindfulness convey an expectation that their proposed intervention will raise the average levels of SWB across the student cohort. This is not the case.

However, while robust, the homeostatic system is not impervious to threats (Cummins et al., 2007). For example, a person's subjective wellbeing can drop below its normal healthy level when encountering significant or prolonged challenges. This is referred to as homeostatic defeat (Cummins, 2010). In Australia, this situation applies to around 5% of the population. For these people, the homeostatic resources available to them are insufficient to return HPMood to its genetic set point. This places them at risk of chronic stress, depression, and anxiety (Cummins, 2010; Cummins, Woerner, Weinberg, & Perera, 2010).

In summary, Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis provides an explanatory model that helps schools on several fronts. First, a validated measure of subjective wellbeing exists and is known as the Personal Wellbeing Index. Second, while various conceptualisations of resilience circulate in the psychological literature and schools (see Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013 for a review), resilience can be operationally defined as having a level of subjective wellbeing that lies within the normal range (Khor, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, & Hutchinson, 2020). Thus, resilience is the degree to which someone's psychological homeostatic system resists threats, and the speed at which the internal and external protective mechanisms return SWB to its genetically determined normal range (Cummins & Wooden, 2014). Third, homeostasis theory sets realistic expectations. Interventions cannot chronically raise normal levels of SWB; however, for people experiencing homeostatic defeat, a successful intervention will assist in restoring their level of SWB towards its normal range (Tomyn, Weinberg, & Cummins, 2014).

Youth Dimension's wellbeing analyses and programs are grounded in rigorous scientific research and informed by the Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis theory, which provides a robust framework with extensive explanatory power for understanding wellbeing dynamics. Our organisation maintains a unique student data repository — the only one of its scale — enabling the establishment of normative ranges for constructs empirically linked to Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis. Data collected from school contexts are systematically analysed, and we produce comprehensive reports written in accessible language to ensure clarity for all stakeholders. This enables evidence-based decision-making to optimise the allocation of finite resources effectively.