Grade 7 · secular
This is a semester of health class built around one idea: the body is a system your kid runs every day, not a shape to judge. First it covers the daily basics — food, sleep, movement, cleanliness. Then it moves outward to protecting that body from fires, germs, traffic, and online strangers. Then it tackles nicotine and vaping head-on, using the biology from unit one to explain why those products hook people. It ends by pulling together the "who do I tell" and "how do I say no" skills from the earlier units into one flexible habit your kid can use for anything — a bad friendship, a stressful week, a stranger online, a family problem. By the end, the goal isn't that they memorized facts about health. It's that they have a couple of concrete routines (read a label, trace how germs spread, refuse pressure in four steps, name a trusted adult) they can actually run when it matters.
The whole year, in plain English. Tap any unit to see every skill inside, nothing is hidden.
This opens the course by treating the body as something you run day to day, not a shape to manage. It covers four areas — food, sleep, movement, and cleanliness — and for each one teaches the actual mechanism behind the advice, not just the rule.
Students classify foods by macronutrient category and state the bodily function each category serves.
Given the same four-step routine modeled on Day 4 (serving size, calories, nutrient amount, percent daily value), students locate and state each value on a label matching the modeled format.
Students interpret serving size, nutrient amount, and percent daily value on an unfamiliar nutrition label to answer function-based questions.
Students explain why identical total sleep duration produces different next-day alertness depending on sleep timing relative to circadian rhythm.
Students infer, from two contrasting logs with equal total hours, that late screen use displaces sleep and disrupts circadian timing.
Students differentiate a habit-built daily activity pattern from an event-based exercise pattern using an unfamiliar weekly log.
Students trace an unfamiliar pathogen transmission scenario and name the specific hygiene habit that interrupts it.
Given a fictional student's unseen combined food, screen, sleep, and activity logs, students generate a written revision plan citing at least three specific changes and the bodily mechanism each addresses.
Students evaluate whether a health claim about food or sleep uses restriction/appearance framing versus function-based framing.
This unit's core claim is that staying safe is mostly about what you do in advance, not how fast you react in the moment. It covers home fire safety, road and pedestrian safety, online safety, and shared-equipment hygiene, all through that same 'before vs. during' lens.
Given a description of how a specific pathogen spreads (droplet, contact, or shared object), students identify the transmission route and match it to the correct hygiene practice that interrupts it.
Students explain why a person can transmit a pathogen before showing any symptoms, using the exposure-incubation-symptom-contagious timeline.
Students distinguish a 'before the danger' prevention action from a 'during the danger' response action across fire, road, online, and hygiene scenarios.
Given a new, unscripted home-safety scenario, students generate a fire-prevention escape plan that includes at least one preparatory action and one escape action, in a household layout not covered in class.
Students calculate the relationship between reaction time and stopping distance using a provided speed/distance data table, and use it to judge whether a described driver or pedestrian had enough time to avoid a collision.
Students identify what counts as 'personal information' in a realistic online message and locate the exact point in an unfamiliar conversation where a stranger requests it.
Given any of the four unit scenario types (fire, road, online, hygiene), students classify a described factor as a risk factor or a protective factor and justify the classification by explaining its effect on likelihood of harm.
Students generalize the risk-factor/protective-factor framework to a workplace or public-space scenario never discussed in class, and construct a plausible risk factor and matching protective factor for it.
Given a scenario depicting an unsafe situation across any unit topic, students identify a specific trusted adult who could help and draft the exact first sentence they would say to report the concern.
Students critique a peer-written scenario response to identify whether it named an actual risk factor or only restated the harm/injury itself.
This covers nicotine and vaping through actual brain biology — how the reward pathway works and how nicotine hijacks it — rather than through scare tactics. It also covers real advertising tricks and a specific four-step way to say no.
Explain how nicotine activates the same dopamine reward pathway that food activates, and identify the difference in intensity and persistence.
Define addiction as a change in what a brain requires to feel normal (tolerance and withdrawal), distinguishing it from a description of weak willpower.
Recall the terms tolerance, withdrawal, and dependence with accurate definitions.
Classify specific advertising techniques in a redacted vape or nicotine ad (flavor naming, packaging color, social media influencer framing) by which risk-perception distortion each is designed to produce.
Given a novel, previously unseen vape advertisement, explain the biological claim the ad implies and identify what it omits about addiction and brain development.
Execute the four-step refusal script (name it, state a reason, offer an alternative, exit) in a low-stakes practiced scenario.
Apply the refusal script to a scenario involving social pressure from a friend that was not modeled in class, adapting the wording to fit.
Compare exposure and protective factors (Unit 2 vocabulary) as they apply to substance access specifically, versus their earlier application to injury risk.
Identify at least two accurate sources of help for a student who is using nicotine or knows a friend who is, distinguishing them from unreliable sources found through casual search.
Generalize the refusal-skill structure to predict how it could apply to a pressure situation entirely unrelated to substances (e.g., being pressured to cheat or exclude someone).
This closes the semester by showing that three skills your kid learned separately — spotting pressure, handling stress, and asking for help — are actually one skill used in three places. It adds friendship patterns, indirect pressure (exclusion, jokes, silence), and how to tell normal stress from stress that needs an adult.
Given a written scenario, students classify a friendship pattern as healthy or unhealthy using at least two pieces of textual evidence.
Students explain why indirect pressure (exclusion, jokes, silence) can produce the same behavior change as direct pressure, using the concept of 'what feels normal.'
Students recall the four generalized refusal-script steps (name it, say no, give a reason or none, offer an alternative or exit) from memory.
Given a novel non-substance peer-pressure scenario never used in instruction, students produce a complete refusal-script response applying all four steps.
Students distinguish normal stress from unhealthy stress in a scenario by checking duration, function, and physical signs against a criteria list.
Students compare the substance-refusal script from Unit 3 and the social-pressure refusal script from this unit, identifying which specific words change and which structural steps stay fixed.
Given a scenario where a friend discloses a worrying situation using indirect language, students decide whether the situation requires routing to a trusted adult, justified by specific scenario evidence.
Students generate a decision rule that applies the help-seeking protocol to a completely novel category of problem not covered in this unit (e.g., a stranger online, a family issue), justifying why the same rule applies.
Students recall the trusted-adult help-seeking protocol steps as formalized in Unit 2, stating them without a scenario attached.
Given three novel scenarios (emotional conflict, subtle pressure, friend disclosure) on the summative, students select and justify which of the three frameworks (stress criteria, refusal script, help-seeking protocol) applies to each and execute it.
From the parent guide
This is a semester of health class built around one idea: the body is a system your kid runs every day, not a shape to judge. First it covers the daily basics — food, sleep, movement, cleanliness. Then it moves outward to protecting that body from fires, germs, traffic, and online strangers. Then it tackles nicotine and vaping head-on, using the biology from unit one to explain why those products hook people. It ends by pulling together the "who do I tell" and "how do I say no" skills from the earlier units into one flexible habit your kid can use for anything — a bad friendship, a stressful week, a stranger online, a family problem. By the end, the goal isn't that they memorized facts about health. It's that they have a couple of concrete routines (read a label, trace how germs spread, refuse pressure in four steps, name a trusted adult) they can actually run when it matters.
Unit 1 · what to expect
This opens the course by treating the body as something you run day to day, not a shape to manage. It covers four areas — food, sleep, movement, and cleanliness — and for each one teaches the actual mechanism behind the advice, not just the rule.
The full guide covers all 4 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