Life Science: Systems, Energy, and Change

Your child learns that everything alive is built from cells, and that what's inside a cell determines what it can do. They'll compare simple cells (like bacteria) to complex ones (like their own), learn what each major cell part does, and actually look at real specimens through a microscope. It ends with them preparing their own slide and writing an argument for what type of cell they're looking at, based only on what they can see.

1. Cell theory (all organisms made of cells; cell is basic unit of life; cells come from pre-existing cells)+

   State the three claims of cell theory and identify which historical observation supports each claim.

2. Prokaryotic vs. eukaryotic cell structure+

   Classify a given cell image as prokaryotic or eukaryotic based on presence or absence of a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles.

3. Structure-function relationship in the mitochondrion+

   Explain how the folded structure of the mitochondrial inner membrane relates to its function of energy release.

4. Organelle structure-function within a whole cell model+

   Construct a labeled model of a plant or animal cell showing at least five organelles and their functions.

5. Unicellular vs. multicellular organization+

   Compare a photograph of an unfamiliar single-celled organism to a photograph of an unfamiliar multicellular tissue and infer which is unicellular based on structural cues, not prior labeling.

6. The distinction between magnification and resolution in microscopy+

   Explain why increasing magnification without increasing resolution fails to reveal more detail in a specimen.

7. Wet-mount slide preparation procedure+

   Prepare a wet-mount slide of a household specimen following a multistep procedure without skipping or reordering steps.

8. Use of observational evidence versus recalled fact in a CER argument about cell type+

   Judge whether a peer's cell drawing and CER explanation correctly use observed structures, not memorized textbook facts, as evidence.

9. Inference of organelle presence from organism function+

   Generate a prediction about what internal structures an entirely new, never-discussed organism's cells must contain, given only a description of what that organism does (e.g., photosynthesizes, moves fast, stores fat).

Same idea as Unit 1, at a bigger scale: cells team up into tissues, tissues into organs, organs into systems, and the interesting part is what actually crosses between systems. The core content is digestion, circulation, breathing, and the nervous system, and how a problem in one shows up as a symptom somewhere else entirely. It ends with your child tracing a swallowed meal through at least three systems and then applying that same reasoning to a symptom they've never discussed.

1. Structure-function relationship in organ tissue (e.g., villi in small intestine, alveoli in lungs)+

   Given a diagram of an unfamiliar organ, students explain why its tissue structure fits its function, using at least two structural features.

2. The cell-tissue-organ-organ system hierarchy+

   Students place cell, tissue, organ, and organ system in the correct hierarchical order and state what each level is made of.

3. Nutrient transport across the digestive-circulatory system interface+

   Students trace the path of a specific nutrient molecule from the small intestine into the bloodstream and identify which two systems interact to move it.

4. Gas exchange between alveoli and capillaries+

   Students diagram gas exchange at the alveolus, showing oxygen and carbon dioxide moving in opposite directions between air and blood.

5. Cross-system causes of an unfamiliar symptom+

   Given a symptom the class has not discussed (e.g., dizziness after standing quickly, or numb fingers in cold), students propose and justify which two systems most plausibly interact to cause it.

6. Reflex (nervous) versus hormonal response timing and duration+

   Students compare a nervous-system reflex response to a hormonal (endocrine) response to the same stimulus type, identifying speed and duration differences.

7. Multi-system flow-model of digestion, gas exchange, and circulation for a single meal+

   Students construct a labeled flow-model showing matter and energy moving through at least three interacting body systems for a swallowed meal.

8. Generalized principle that separating gas-carrying and nutrient-carrying pathways prevents harmful mixing+

   Given a totally novel organism's organ description (e.g., a fictional animal's single mixing organ for air and blood), students predict a likely health consequence and justify it using the matter-versus-mixing principle from human circulation.

9. Claim-evidence structure of an informational text on organ systems+

   Students summarize the main claim and supporting evidence of a grade-level text on organ transplant rejection, distinguishing the text's evidence from their own outside knowledge.

10. Validity of matter/energy transfer arrows in a systems flow-model+

    Students critique a peer's flow-model draft by checking whether every arrow represents an actual transfer of matter or energy rather than a vague connection.

This is the chemistry underneath the last two units: how plants make food (photosynthesis) and how living things release energy from food (respiration), and why these two reactions are mirror images of each other. Your child works through both word equations with physical models, then runs a real investigation at home — sealed jars with a plant in light and in darkness, watched with a carbon dioxide color indicator — and has to explain their own data against the equations they learned.

1. The photosynthesis word equation (reactants and products)+

   State the word equation for photosynthesis, naming carbon dioxide, water, glucose, and oxygen as reactants and products.

2. The cellular respiration word equation (reactants and products)+

   State the word equation for cellular respiration, naming glucose and oxygen as reactants and carbon dioxide, water, and released energy as products.

3. The reverse-direction relationship between the photosynthesis and respiration equations+

   Explain why the chemical structures of the photosynthesis and respiration equations are mirror images, using the same atoms in reversed roles.

4. Photosynthesis and respiration as distinguishable processes in unfamiliar real-world scenarios+

   Classify a given real-world scenario (e.g., a sealed terrarium, a submerged aquatic plant, a hibernating animal) as primarily evidence of photosynthesis, respiration, or both occurring.

5. The path of a single carbon atom from ingested food through the body and out as exhaled CO2+

   Trace a single labeled carbon atom's path from a sandwich's bread through digestion, cellular respiration, and exhalation, identifying every location it visits.

6. Energy flow versus matter cycling in a living system+

   Differentiate the one-way flow of energy through a system from the cycling and reuse of matter, using labeled diagrams of both a carbon atom's path and an energy unit's path.

7. A prediction for CO2 indicator color change under light versus dark plant conditions+

   Generate a testable prediction for what will happen to a CO2 indicator's color in sealed jars containing a plant in light versus a plant in darkness.

8. Graphed CO2 concentration data from a light-vs-dark plant investigation+

   Interpret graphed CO2 concentration data from the household investigation to support or refute a claim about whether a plant respires in darkness.

9. Energy flow versus matter cycling, applied to an unfamiliar biological system+

   Construct a written scientific explanation distinguishing energy flow from matter cycling in a completely novel system never discussed in class (e.g., a compost pile, a deep-sea vent community).

10. The global consequence of photosynthesis ceasing, reasoned from the photosynthesis and respiration equations+

    Predict what would happen to atmospheric oxygen levels over decades if every photosynthetic organism on Earth stopped functioning simultaneously, justifying the prediction from the two chemical equations.

This zooms Unit 3's two reactions out to a whole ecosystem: producers doing photosynthesis, consumers and decomposers doing respiration, all connected in food webs and energy pyramids. The unit spends real time on the single stickiest idea in the whole course — that energy does not cycle back the way matter does — and ends with your child building an original energy pyramid and matter diagram from a real dataset they've never seen before.

1. Trophic level classification within a food chain+

   Given a set of feeding relationships, students correctly place organisms into trophic levels (producer, primary consumer, secondary consumer, decomposer).

2. Food web diagram construction from ecosystem description+

   Students construct a food web diagram from a written description of feeding relationships among 6-8 organisms in a named ecosystem.

3. The 10% energy transfer rule and its biological cause+

   Students explain why usable energy decreases by roughly 90% at each successive trophic level, citing heat loss and metabolic use.

4. Percentage transfer calculation from biomass data using proportional reasoning+

   Given biomass data for a real ecosystem's trophic levels, students calculate the percentage of energy transferred between two adjacent levels.

5. The distinction between one-way energy flow and cyclic matter movement in ecosystems+

   Students distinguish energy flow from matter cycling by identifying which of a set of ecosystem diagrams correctly shows each, and explaining why energy cannot cycle back.

6. Decomposer function as the mechanism completing matter cycling+

   Students explain how decomposers return matter to an ecosystem by connecting decomposer cellular respiration to nutrient release into soil and air.

7. Carrying capacity and limiting factors in a real population dataset+

   Given real population data for an organism in a bounded habitat, students identify the limiting factor(s) constraining carrying capacity and justify the choice with evidence from the data.

8. Indirect trophic effects of keystone species removal in an unfamiliar food web+

   Students predict and justify the likely direct and indirect effects on a food web if a named keystone species is removed, using the web's structure as evidence.

9. The relationship between a textual claim and quantitative/graphical evidence about ecosystem disturbance+

   Students read a grade-appropriate scientific text about a real ecosystem disturbance and identify how the text's central claim about ecosystem stability is supported by data presented in an accompanying chart.

10. Synthesis of energy-pyramid construction, matter-cycling diagramming, and disturbance argument for a novel real ecosystem+

    Using a real published dataset, students construct an original energy pyramid and matter-cycling diagram for an ecosystem not covered in class, and write an evidence-based argument evaluating a proposed disturbance to it.

This unit takes carrying capacity and limiting factors — mentioned loosely in Unit 4 — and makes 'population' its own subject. Your child learns to tell density-dependent limits (like competition) from density-independent ones (like a storm), reads growth graphs, and studies predator-prey cycles as one population's ups and downs lagging behind another's. Nearly every lesson is anchored to a real graph, never a term without its picture.

1. Carrying capacity and limiting factors as shown on a population graph+

   Given a population dataset, state the carrying capacity shown by the graph and identify at least one limiting factor named in the data.

2. Density-dependent versus density-independent limiting factors+

   Classify a given limiting factor as density-dependent or density-independent based on whether its effect changes with population size.

3. The mechanism linking resource availability, competition, and slowing growth rate near carrying capacity+

   Explain why a population's growth rate slows as it approaches carrying capacity, using the relationship between resource availability and competition.

4. Population-growth graphs constructed from tabular data+

   Construct a labeled population-growth graph from a provided data table, correctly plotting points and identifying the growth phase.

5. The lag pattern in predator-prey population cycles versus single-species logistic growth+

   Compare a predator-prey population cycle to a single-species logistic growth curve, identifying what the predator curve's lag reveals about cause and effect.

6. Emergence of limiting factors in a novel, untaught ecosystem scenario+

   Given a novel, previously unseen ecosystem scenario (e.g., an invasive species introduced to an island with no natural predators), predict which limiting factors will emerge and justify the prediction using population concepts from this unit.

7. Claim-evidence-reasoning argument about a population's future trajectory+

   Write a claim-evidence-reasoning argument predicting a population's near-term trajectory from a real dataset, citing specific data points as evidence and naming a limiting-factor mechanism as reasoning.

8. The claim that population crashes always indicate an external problem+

   Evaluate a claim that a population crash is always evidence that 'something went wrong,' using density-dependent and density-independent factor concepts to judge whether the claim holds for a natural predator-prey cycle.

This unit answers the question Unit 5 left hanging: why do individuals within a population differ at all? Your child moves from real examples (bacteria splitting, rabbits mating) to genes, alleles, and chromosomes, using physical allele cards before switching to symbolic Punnett squares. A tricky stretch in the middle (days 14-16) has them work out on their own why full siblings from the same parents can differ, before being told the answer. It ends by tying a computed ratio, real offspring data, and individual variation together in one written piece.

1. Sexual vs. asexual reproduction and the variation each produces+

   Given descriptions of five organisms' reproduction (e.g., a bacterium splitting, a strawberry plant runner, two rabbits mating), classify each as sexual or asexual reproduction and predict whether offspring will be genetically identical or variable.

2. Genes, alleles, and chromosomes as discrete units of inherited information+

   State that chromosomes are made of many genes, and each gene can exist as different alleles, using a labeled diagram of a chromosome pair.

3. Dominant/recessive patterns and simple Punnett square prediction+

   Complete a monohybrid Punnett square for a given single-gene cross (e.g., Bb x Bb) and state the predicted genotype and phenotype ratios of offspring.

4. Dominant/recessive patterns and simple Punnett square prediction+

   Given a new organism and trait not used in instruction, assign appropriate allele letters, set up a monohybrid Punnett square, and calculate the offspring ratio.

5. Genetic variation among offspring of the same parents+

   Explain why two full siblings from the same two parents can have different genotypes and phenotypes, connecting this to the random combination of alleles at fertilization.

6. Probability prediction versus observed sample data in genetic crosses+

   Compare a real offspring-count data sample against a predicted Punnett square ratio and explain any mismatch in terms of sample size, not in terms of the prediction being wrong.

7. Life cycles across species as patterns of reproduction and variation+

   Given a life cycle diagram from an organism never discussed in class (e.g., a fern or a jellyfish), identify the generational pattern of reproduction and infer whether variation is introduced sexually, asexually, or both.

8. Inferring dominance and genetic explanation from population-level trait ratio data+

   Given a population trait dataset unlike any used in the unit (different organism, different trait, no letters assigned), design a plausible genetic explanation for the observed trait ratio, including proposing which allele is likely dominant, and justify the choice with evidence from the data.

9. The relationship between genetic prediction, population data, and individual variation+

   Write an explanation connecting a computed Punnett square prediction, a real offspring dataset, and the reason individual offspring vary, integrating vocabulary from Units 5 and 6.

This unit answers how a whole population changes over generations without any single individual changing. It fuses Unit 6's mechanism (genes and heritable variation) with Unit 5's population frame (competition, limited resources): variation that already exists, plus some individuals surviving and reproducing better than others, shifts what's common in the next generation. It leans hard on real datasets — peppered moths, guppy color, antibiotic resistance — to fight the idea that organisms adapt on purpose because they need to.

1. Pre-existing heritable variation as the raw material for selection+

   Given a scenario with a population and an environmental change, state which pre-existing heritable trait already varies in that population, without inventing a new trait.

2. Differential survival and reproduction as the mechanism of population-level trait change+

   Explain, using a specific taught example (peppered moth or antibiotic resistance), why differential survival changes the proportion of a trait in the next generation rather than changing any individual.

3. Trait-frequency change calculated from population count data+

   Given a two-generation trait-frequency table for an unfamiliar organism and environment, calculate the change in percentage of a trait and classify whether the pattern is consistent with selection.

4. Acclimation versus adaptation as distinct time scales and mechanisms+

   Compare an individual organism's lifetime acclimation (e.g., an animal growing a thicker coat one winter) with a population's multi-generational adaptation, identifying what differs between the two.

5. A full natural-selection argument built from an unfamiliar dataset+

   Construct a written, evidence-based explanation of a novel trait-frequency dataset that names the pre-existing variation, the selective pressure, and the resulting frequency shift, and explicitly rules out an individual-effort explanation.

6. The intentionality misconception in natural selection explanations+

   Critique a claim in a fictional student's argument that states 'the moths turned darker because they needed to hide,' identifying the specific logical step that misattributes intention to individuals.

7. Lines of evidence for natural selection and their respective limits+

   Distinguish, across three types of evidence (fossil record, comparative anatomy, direct observation of resistant bacteria), what each type can and cannot show about natural selection.

8. Generalizing the natural-selection argument structure to an invented system+

   Using a completely unfamiliar organism-environment scenario (e.g., a fictional beetle on a fictional planet) with a supplied trait-frequency table, generate a full selection argument and identify what additional data would strengthen or weaken it.

No new biology gets taught here — this is the year's capstone, where your child uses vocabulary and ideas from every prior unit (cell, energy flow, population, heredity, natural selection) to build one evidence argument for how two species are related. The real skill is judging whether several independent kinds of evidence — anatomy, embryos, cells, energy use, population data, heredity — actually point the same direction, or whether one line contradicts the rest.

1. Homologous structures as evidence of common ancestry+

   Given two fossil or anatomical diagrams of related organisms, identify homologous structures shared between them.

2. Convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence (multi-scale evidence argument)+

   Explain why anatomical similarity alone is weaker evidence for evolutionary relationship than anatomical similarity plus matching cellular, energetic, and heredity evidence.

3. Patterns of change, diversity, and extinction in the fossil record+

   Interpret a fossil-record data table showing changes in a trait's frequency over geologic time layers.

4. The six evidence categories used to build a multi-scale argument+

   Classify a piece of evidence (anatomical, embryological, cellular/molecular, energetic, population, or heredity) by which course scale it belongs to.

5. Common ancestry versus alternative explanations for shared traits+

   Compare two competing explanations for a set of species similarities (common ancestry versus convergent evolution/coincidence) and judge which the evidence better supports.

6. Convergence and contradiction among lines of evidence in a written argument+

   Given a completed multi-scale evidence argument, judge whether the four lines of evidence actually converge or whether one line contradicts the others.

7. An original multi-scale evidence argument for a chosen species pair+

   For a self-selected species pair never discussed in class, research and select evidence from at least three of the course's scales and construct a written argument for their evolutionary relationship, defended against a specified counter-explanation.

8. Predictions of disconfirming or confirming multi-scale evidence for an unfamiliar species claim+

   Given a novel claim about two unrelated organisms sharing a surprising trait, generate a testable prediction of what evidence would need to exist across scales to support or refute common ancestry.

9. Cumulative vocabulary from Units 1-7+

   Recall the definitions of at least four evidence-scale vocabulary terms drawn from Units 1, 3-4, 5, and 6-7 (e.g., homologous structure, trophic level, carrying capacity, allele).