Grade 9 · Christian · NGSS/CCSS-aligned
This is a year of health class built for one kid and one parent, not a classroom. It's about how to actually run your own body and make your own calls: what to eat and why, how to train and sleep, what stress is doing to you and when to get help, how alcohol and nicotine actually work on a teenage body, what to do in the first sixty seconds of an emergency, and how to tell a real health claim from a marketing pitch. It skips sex ed entirely — where topics brush up against puberty or body systems, it stays strictly on the factual, non-sexual side. By the end, your kid should be someone who reads a label, judges a claim, and doesn't freeze in a crisis.
The whole year, in plain English. Tap any unit to see every skill inside, nothing is hidden.
This is where your kid learns to read their own body like data instead of morality — energy in versus energy out, what carbs/protein/fat actually do, why a sleep-deprived week catches up with you, and why caffeine hits differently depending on how much and when. It also introduces the six-step decision framework (goal, options, evidence, constraints, decide, review) that every later unit reuses.
Given a person's estimated calories consumed and calories expended for a day, the student determines whether that day was in energy surplus, deficit, or balance and states what that single day does and does not predict about weight change.
The student classifies foods and food combinations by primary macronutrient (carbohydrate, protein, fat) and explains the distinct physiological role each macronutrient plays in energy supply, tissue repair, or hormone function.
Given a real nutrition/ingredient label for a food the student has not seen in class, the student identifies which of two competing marketing claims on the packaging the label itself supports or contradicts.
The student explains why a training plan that improves cardiovascular fitness may not improve strength or flexibility, using the distinct adaptations each component of fitness requires.
Given a sleep log showing bedtime/wake variability and total hours across a week, the student calculates the student's approximate sleep debt and identifies which nights are most likely misaligned with circadian rhythm.
The student compares two same-day scenarios of caffeine/energy-drink intake (different dose, same substance) and explains why the effect differs, introducing dose-response informally without naming a numeric threshold.
Given a novel personal or family health-related scenario with a stated goal and at least one real constraint (budget, schedule, or access), the student applies the goal-options-evidence-constraints-decide-review framework to produce and justify a decision.
Given the summative performance task's two counter-scenarios (a changed budget and a changed schedule constraint neither explicitly rehearsed in class), the student revises the weekly food/movement/sleep plan and explains which specific element of the plan must change and why, without being told which framework step to revisit.
Given a claim like 'more sleep is always better' or 'more exercise is always better' applied to an unfamiliar case (e.g., an elite athlete's taper week, or an oversleeping scenario), the student judges whether the claim holds and identifies the missing variable that makes it false as stated.
The student recalls the definitions of energy balance, macronutrient, sleep debt, circadian rhythm, and dose-response when cued with the term alone (no context sentence).
This unit treats stress as a signal to read, not an enemy to defeat, and treats mental health struggles with the same seriousness as a physical injury — something with real signs, a real decision process, and a real path to help. It builds on last unit's sleep debt and recovery ideas and reuses the six-step decision framework for a much harder kind of decision: asking for help.
Given a description of a stressor, sequence and label the physiological stages of the acute stress response (trigger, hormonal cascade, physical changes, resolution or escalation) using the terms introduced in the worked example.
Explain why chronic stress produces different physical consequences than acute stress, using the concept of a body that does not return to baseline (linking to Unit 1's sleep debt and recovery concepts).
Given two contrasted real-world coping scenarios (one adaptive, one maladaptive, same stressor), identify the structural feature that makes one adaptive and the other maladaptive, rather than simply labeling each scenario.
Classify a set of described adolescent behaviors as within-normal-range mood/stress fluctuation versus a factual warning sign of anxiety or depression, using only the criteria taught (duration, intensity, interference with functioning) and without assigning a diagnostic label.
Given a novel peer-conflict or family-stress vignette never used in instruction, apply the goal-options-evidence-constraints-decide-review decision framework (from Unit 1) to a help-seeking decision, producing a plan that names who to tell, what to say, and what happens next.
Identify at least two protective factors present (or conspicuously absent) in a described adolescent's life and explain how each would plausibly change the trajectory of a stress or mood difficulty.
Given an unfamiliar scenario in which a peer's stated reason for not seeking help is examined, generate a counter-argument that names the specific risk of delay or non-disclosure, without a script or sentence starter provided.
Demonstrate, in a live conversation with a parent acting as the trusted adult, the opening move of a help-seeking disclosure (what to say first) using the sentence frame taught, then adapt it without the frame on a second, different scenario.
Correctly recall Unit 1's definitions of sleep debt and recovery when they appear embedded inside a stress-related vignette (not flagged as a vocabulary question), as a delayed-retention check.
This unit turns dose-response — introduced casually with caffeine in Unit 1 — into a real reasoning tool for alcohol, nicotine/vaping, cannabis, and misused medications. It treats substance use as one of the coping strategies from Unit 2, usually a bad one, and spends most of its practice time on refusal and bystander scripts under realistic social pressure, not more facts about drugs.
State the definition of dose-response and identify the dose, frequency, and timing variables in a given substance-use scenario.
Explain why the same dose of alcohol, nicotine, or a medication can produce different effects in two different people, citing at least two biological variables (e.g., body mass, tolerance, metabolism, combined substances).
Classify a described substance-use scenario as primarily a short-term (acute) effect, a long-term effect, or a sign of developing addiction, using physiological criteria rather than the substance's legal status.
Distinguish signs of intoxication that call for supportive help-seeking from signs of overdose or acute medical crisis that require an emergency response, given a written or video case description.
Apply the Unit 2 help-seeking pathway to a substance-use case in which a peer shows signs of a developing problem but not an acute emergency.
Deliver a refusal script under simulated peer-pressure conditions that maintains the refusal after at least one social pushback line, without deferring the decision to authority or ending the friendship as the only strategy.
Critique a substance-use marketing message (vape flavor ad, alcohol social-media post, or supplement claim) by identifying the specific persuasion technique used and the health claim it obscures or exaggerates.
Generate a counter-message that would address the specific reason a realistic teenager in a given scenario is considering using a substance (coping, social belonging, curiosity), rather than a generic 'drugs are bad' warning, and justify why it targets that reason.
Analyze a three-part case file (substance, dose/context, social-pressure situation) never seen before to (a) predict the physiological effect using dose-response reasoning, (b) classify it as emergency vs. help-seeking, and (c) apply the Unit 2 pathway correctly.
This is where thinking-it-through gives way to reacting fast. Your kid learns a small set of rehearsed physical steps — checking a scene, calling for help, choking response, bleeding control, recognizing shock, recovery position, CPR/AED basics — plus a personal safety plan for home, online, and situational risks. This is hands-on and physical, not a reading unit.
Given a description or short video of a collapsed or injured person, state the correct order of the primary assessment sequence (check scene safety, check responsiveness, call/direct someone to call for help, check breathing) without omitting or reordering a step.
Correctly execute the two-hand-position adult choking response (identify signs of severe airway obstruction, deliver abdominal thrusts) on a training mannequin or with a coached partner simulation, in the correct order, without a verbal step-by-step prompt from the coach.
Explain why controlling external bleeding with direct pressure works, by connecting the action (sustained direct pressure over the wound) to the physiological goal (allowing clot formation / reducing blood loss) using circulatory system vocabulary from Unit 1.
Given a branching scenario describing a person with slurred speech, irregular breathing, and vomiting at a party, classify whether this is most likely an overdose/intoxication emergency requiring an immediate call, using recognition signs taught in Unit 3.
Given four novel branching-scenario emergencies not used in instruction (e.g., a diabetic emergency, a severe allergic reaction, a seizure, a person found unresponsive in cold water), determine the correct recognize-decide-act sequence and correct call/no-call decision for each, despite none matching a rehearsed script exactly.
Explain why increased anatomical or medical knowledge can sometimes slow a bystander's response time in an emergency, by connecting the decision framework's 'evidence' and 'options' steps (Unit 1) to the time cost of considering more options under pressure.
Given a description of a person exhibiting shock symptoms (pale/clammy skin, rapid weak pulse, confusion) after an injury, distinguish shock from a simple fainting episode and identify the correct positioning/monitoring response for each.
Construct a personal safety plan covering at least one home risk, one online/digital risk, and one situational risk (e.g., walking alone, an unsafe party), specifying a concrete preventive action and a concrete response action for each.
Recall the correct emergency-call script components (location, what happened, condition of the person, staying on the line) when prompted immediately after instruction.
Compare the physical demonstration of recovery position against a scored checklist, identifying any step performed out of order or omitted, using the checklist's stated criteria rather than the coach's subjective impression.
The capstone: your kid turns everything they've learned onto real supplements, wellness apps, vape marketing, and health-app "emergency detection" claims. It adds two new pieces — what FDA approval actually does and doesn't guarantee, and a set of named advertising tactics (testimonial, before/after, influencer, false authority) — then has your kid write a real buy/don't-buy recommendation on an actual product, citing at least three earlier units correctly.
Given a supplement or 'superfood' product label and ad, the student identifies which specific nutrition claims are testable using dose-response and nutrition-label concepts from Unit 1.
The student explains what FDA approval/regulation does and does not guarantee about a supplement's safety or effectiveness, using the correct regulatory distinction (drug vs. dietary supplement pathway).
The student names and gives an example of at least three advertising techniques (testimonial, before/after, influencer endorsement) found in a given set of real health-product ads.
Given a wellness-app claim about mood or stress reduction, the student evaluates whether the claim is supported using Unit 2 stress/coping vocabulary (stress response, rumination, protective factor) correctly applied, not merely mentioned.
Given marketing for a vape/nicotine 'recovery' or cessation-adjacent product never discussed in class, the student predicts what claims should raise suspicion, using Unit 3 substance-effect and addiction content with no cue identifying which unit applies.
Given a health/fitness app's marketing claim that it can 'detect emergencies' or tell a user 'when to call 911,' the student evaluates the claim's validity against Unit 4's call/no-call decision criteria in a context (a novel wearable device) never used in Unit 4 instruction.
The student compares two health products marketed with similar claims but different evidence quality (one with a cited clinical study, one with only testimonials) and explains which is more credible and why.
The student generates a full written recommendation (buy/don't buy/use with caveats) for a self-selected real health product or app, applying the Unit 1 decision framework and correctly citing content from at least three prior units.
The student recalls the six steps of the decision-making framework (goal, options, evidence, constraints, decide, review) from memory without a reference sheet.
From the parent guide
This is a year of health class built for one kid and one parent, not a classroom. It's about how to actually run your own body and make your own calls: what to eat and why, how to train and sleep, what stress is doing to you and when to get help, how alcohol and nicotine actually work on a teenage body, what to do in the first sixty seconds of an emergency, and how to tell a real health claim from a marketing pitch. It skips sex ed entirely — where topics brush up against puberty or body systems, it stays strictly on the factual, non-sexual side. By the end, your kid should be someone who reads a label, judges a claim, and doesn't freeze in a crisis.
Unit 1 · what to expect
This is where your kid learns to read their own body like data instead of morality — energy in versus energy out, what carbs/protein/fat actually do, why a sleep-deprived week catches up with you, and why caffeine hits differently depending on how much and when. It also introduces the six-step decision framework (goal, options, evidence, constraints, decide, review) that every later unit reuses.
The full guide covers all 5 units: where kids get stuck, what to say, and how to tell it's working. Included with the course.
Ready when you are
Free for 30 days · then $29/mo or $290/yr for the whole family · Cancel anytime, no questions asked.
Start your family's account