Science | Lodestar Atlas

Version 0.1 · Proposal, awaiting ratification · July 15, 2026. Every alignment, objective, and crosswalk in this document is a proposal awaiting human judgment.

Open source document · v0.1 →

Grade 6 science at Enlightium develops the student as a disciplined observer and interpreter of God's created order. Across the year the student investigates matter, force and energy, living things, and the Earth and its systems, learning to reason from evidence, to build and communicate scientific arguments, and to exercise the wise stewardship of creation for which humanity was made.

The Lodestars below are derived from the discipline, the grade-level standards, and the school's foundational documents, not from any particular course as built. The content that realizes them, this year's units, texts, and investigations, is a swappable instance that changes without disturbing this layer. The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills appear here only as a reference layer for coverage and portability; formation-oriented standards map upward to them for documentation and are never decomposed downward into instruction.

TEKS reference layer · 19 TAC §112.26 (Science, Grade 6, Adopted 2021) · retrieved from tea.texas.gov, July 2026

The Seven Lodestars

Lodestar 1 · Reasoning Within a Faithful Order

Standard

The student reasons scientifically about a real and ordered creation: framing questions, designing fair and controlled investigations, gathering and weighing evidence, and tracing how scientific models are revised as evidence accumulates. The student distinguishes the tentative, revisable claims of empirical inquiry from the certain truths of Scripture, and can explain why scientific models are provisional yet genuinely reliable.

Theological and philosophical anchor

Science is possible because the world is genuinely ordered and the human mind is made to know it. The regularities the student learns to test are the ordinary faithfulness of God in upholding what He has made, and to investigate them is a form of stewardship and honesty: the student submits claims to evidence because truth is received, not invented. This is also why the student learns the limits of the method. Empirical science reasons from observation toward explanation, and its conclusions are held with a confidence proportioned to the evidence, always open to revision; they are a different kind of claim from what God has spoken plainly, and a disciplined scientist keeps the two distinct rather than collapsing one into the other.

TEKS correspondence, strand level

TEKS strand	Disposition	Note
6.1	In scope	Scientific and engineering practices: the student asks questions, plans and conducts descriptive, comparative, and experimental investigations.
6.2	In scope	Analysis and interpretation of data to construct explanations.
6.3	In scope	Scientific reasoning and problem solving; evaluation of evidence and models.
6.5	In scope	Recurring themes and concepts, including the nature and use of models and the distinction between observation and inference.

ESO mapping

ESO	How the standard exercises it
Academic ESO — critical-thinking skills	Makes evaluation of evidence and models, not recall, the object of mastery.
Academic ESO — learner's disposition	Forms the habit of questioning, testing, and revising rather than passively receiving.
Academic ESO — mastery of core subjects	Establishes the scientific practices on which all later science mastery depends.
Spiritual ESO — biblical worldview impacting mind	Frames inquiry as the disciplined knowing of an ordered creation, so worldview governs method.
Spiritual ESO — ongoing intellectual growth	Treats provisional, revisable knowledge as a lifelong posture of learning under God.

Assessment signature

Summative. A written or oral investigation defense: the student reconstructs one investigation from question through conclusion, justifies its design, and identifies where its model remains provisional and why. Scored by this Lodestar's rubric.

Formative. Low-stakes checks along the way: fair-test design critiques, prediction-and-revision logs, and short reasoning prompts that surface the observation-versus-inference distinction.

Rubric

Dimension	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Question and design	Frames a testable question and designs a controlled investigation, defending each control.	Frames a testable question and follows a sound fair-test design.	Question or design present but controls are weak or partial.	No testable question or no coherent design.
Evidence and inference	Weighs evidence deliberately and cleanly separates what was observed from what is inferred, noting what would count against the claim.	Supports claims with relevant evidence and generally distinguishes observation from inference.	Cites evidence unevenly or blurs observation and inference.	Assertion substitutes for evidence.
Provisional models	Explains why a model is provisional yet reliable using a concrete case, and locates the boundary between empirical and scriptural claims.	Distinguishes hypothesis, theory, and law and recognizes models as revisable.	Uses the terms but blurs their distinctions.	Treats models as either arbitrary or beyond question.

This rubric scores reasoning and process. It does not score belief or conclusions.

Current-year instance (illustration only, subordinate to the standard). Presently realized chiefly in the course's opening foundations-of-science work, with later investigations serving as recurring practice.

Lodestar 2 · Structure, System, and Design

Standard

The student explains how the arrangement and interaction of parts determines the properties and behavior of a whole, applying this across physical and living systems. The student reasons about the order and apparent design evident in creation while keeping empirical observation distinct from interpretive claims made about it.

Theological and philosophical anchor

That the world is composed of ordered structures whose parts work together toward function is one of the most far-reaching things a scientist learns to see, and it is precisely what one would expect of a creation spoken into being and held together by its Maker. This Lodestar teaches the student to trace order wherever it appears, from the composition of matter to the integration of a living system, and to recognize design as a reasonable reading of that order. It also teaches restraint: the observation of order is empirical, while the inference to a designer is an interpretive judgment, and the student learns to make the argument honestly by keeping the two on their proper footing rather than presenting conviction as measurement.

TEKS correspondence, strand level

TEKS strand	Disposition	Note
6.6A	In scope	Structure of matter (atoms and their relation to matter's properties) as a primary instance of structure determining behavior.
6.5	In scope	Recurring themes: structure and function, systems and system models.
6.6B, 6.6C	Out of scope	The classification of pure substances, mixtures, and elements is claimed by Lodestar 3; this Lodestar claims only the structure-determines-property principle, not the classification tasks.

ESO mapping

ESO	How the standard exercises it
Academic ESO — critical-thinking skills	Builds transferable structure-and-function reasoning across physical and living systems.
Academic ESO — mastery of core subjects	Supplies the conceptual spine (systems, models) that unifies the science core.
Spiritual ESO — biblical worldview impacting mind	Reads order and design in creation while disciplining the limits of empirical claims.
Spiritual ESO — ongoing intellectual growth	Cultivates the capacity to hold interpretive and empirical claims in right relation.

Assessment signature

Summative. A cross-system analysis: the student takes two systems studied in different parts of the year, one physical and one living, and argues how structure determines function in each, then evaluates the design inference while marking what is observed and what is interpreted. Scored by this Lodestar's rubric.

Formative. System-diagramming exercises and short "structure predicts behavior" prompts that ask the student to reason from arrangement to property.

Rubric

Dimension	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Structure to function	Shows precisely how arrangement of parts produces the behavior of the whole, across more than one system.	Connects structure to function accurately in a given system.	Describes structure and function but the causal link is vague.	Treats structure and function as unrelated facts.
Reasoning about order and design	Argues from observed order to a design inference while explicitly marking the move from empirical to interpretive.	Recognizes order as evidence and frames the design inference as an interpretation.	Asserts design without distinguishing it from observation, or omits the reasoning.	No coherent reasoning about order.
Disciplined claim-making	Keeps empirical and interpretive claims cleanly separated throughout and represents uncertainty honestly.	Generally distinguishes the two kinds of claim.	Conflates measurement and conviction at points.	Presents interpretation as if it were measurement.

This rubric scores reasoning and process. It does not score belief or conclusions.

Current-year instance (illustration only, subordinate to the standard). Presently realized where the course treats atomic structure and, later, the organization of living systems.

Lodestar 3 · Matter and Its Transformations

Standard

The student describes the composition, classification, and physical properties of matter and explains how matter changes and how those changes are evidenced. The student classifies matter as elements, compounds, and mixtures, reasons about density, and identifies evidence of chemical change.

Theological and philosophical anchor

The material world is not chaos but a differentiated order that can be named, classified, and measured, and the student who learns to do so is learning to read a creation that God pronounced good and gave to humanity to understand and use. Matter behaves lawfully, its transformations leave evidence, and the reliability of that order under investigation is a gift, not an accident, of the world's being upheld by its Maker.

TEKS correspondence, strand level

TEKS strand	Disposition	Note
6.6A	In scope	Matter and kinetic energy; physical properties of matter.
6.6B	In scope	Pure substances and mixtures, including homogeneous and heterogeneous mixtures.
6.6C	In scope	Classification of elements.
6.6D	In scope	Comparing density.
6.6E	In scope	Evidence of chemical change.

ESO mapping

ESO	How the standard exercises it
Academic ESO — mastery of core subjects	Secures the matter strand through classification and quantitative reasoning.
Academic ESO — critical-thinking skills	Requires evidence-based judgment about physical versus chemical change.
Academic ESO — technological skills and safe practices	Exercises measurement, tools, and safe laboratory practice in investigating matter.
Spiritual ESO — biblical worldview impacting mind	Treats the study of matter as reading an ordered, good creation entrusted to humanity.

Assessment signature

Summative. A classification-and-change task: the student is given a set of substances and observations and must classify them, reason quantitatively about density, and marshal evidence to argue whether a described change is physical or chemical. Scored by this Lodestar's rubric.

Formative. Sorting and separation activities, density calculations, and short evidence-of-change prompts.

Rubric

Dimension	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Classification	Classifies matter accurately and justifies each classification by property.	Classifies matter accurately with sound reasons.	Classifies with some errors or thin justification.	Classification largely incorrect.
Quantitative reasoning	Reasons about density precisely and interprets what the value means physically.	Calculates and applies density correctly.	Calculates with errors or cannot interpret the result.	Cannot apply the concept.
Evidence of change	Distinguishes physical from chemical change and defends the call with specific evidence, addressing counter-evidence.	Distinguishes the two using appropriate evidence.	Names evidence but reasons unevenly.	Cannot connect evidence to a type of change.

This rubric scores reasoning and process. It does not score belief or conclusions.

Current-year instance (illustration only, subordinate to the standard). Presently realized in the course's treatment of matter and its properties within the physical-science sequence.

Lodestar 4 · Forces, Motion, and Energy

Standard

The student explains the relationship between force and motion and the forms, transformations, and conservation of energy. The student reasons about net force and its effect on motion, describes potential and kinetic energy and their interconversion, and traces energy through systems.

Theological and philosophical anchor

The physical world runs on lawful relationships between force, motion, and energy, and their constancy is what makes prediction and engineering possible. That the universe should be governed by such faithful and describable regularities, rather than by caprice, is consonant with a Creator who sustains His works in dependable order, and the student who masters these laws is learning both a body of knowledge and a habit of trusting that creation is intelligible.

TEKS correspondence, strand level

TEKS strand	Disposition	Note
6.7A	In scope	Forces in real-world contexts.
6.7B	In scope	Calculating net force.
6.7C	In scope	Newton's third law of motion.
6.8A	In scope	Compare and contrast potential and kinetic energy.
6.8B	In scope	Energy transformations in systems.
6.8C	In scope	Energy of waves.

ESO mapping

ESO	How the standard exercises it
Academic ESO — mastery of core subjects	Secures the force-and-energy core of physical science.
Academic ESO — critical-thinking skills	Requires reasoning about net force and energy conservation, not formula recall.
Academic ESO — technological skills and safe practices	Applies measurement and quantitative tools to physical scenarios.
Spiritual ESO — biblical worldview impacting mind	Reads lawful physical regularity as the dependable order of a sustaining Creator.

Assessment signature

Summative. A systems-and-energy analysis: the student traces force and energy through a described physical scenario, computes net force where appropriate, and explains the energy transformations, defending conservation. Scored by this Lodestar's rubric.

Formative. Force diagrams, net-force calculations, and energy-transformation traces as low-stakes practice.

Rubric

Dimension	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Force and motion	Reasons accurately about net force and its effect on motion and defends the analysis.	Applies force-and-motion relationships correctly.	Applies them with errors or gaps.	Cannot relate force to motion.
Energy and transformation	Traces energy through a system, identifies transformations, and explains conservation precisely.	Identifies energy forms and transformations correctly.	Identifies forms but struggles with transformation or conservation.	Cannot identify energy forms.
Quantitative reasoning	Computes and interprets quantities accurately and explains their physical meaning.	Computes relevant quantities correctly.	Computes with errors.	Cannot set up the calculation.

This rubric scores reasoning and process. It does not score belief or conclusions.

Current-year instance (illustration only, subordinate to the standard). Presently realized in the course's force-and-motion and energy sequences.

Lodestar 5 · The Order and Interdependence of Living Things

Standard

The student explains how living things are organized from the cell upward, how organisms are classified, and how they interact with and depend upon one another and their environment. The student reasons about the structures and processes by which organisms survive and about the relationships that order living communities.

Theological and philosophical anchor

Living things display an order that runs from the cell to the organism to the community, an interdependence in which each kind is fitted to its place and to the others around it. Scripture presents this living order as the deliberate work of a Creator who made creatures according to their kinds and pronounced the whole good, and the student who studies it is tracing design and provision, not accident. Learning how organisms are built and how they depend on one another also prepares the student for the stewardship that is humanity's charge over the living world.

TEKS correspondence, strand level

TEKS strand	Disposition	Note
6.12A	In scope	Biotic and abiotic factors and competition in ecosystems.
6.12B	In scope	Ecological relationships.
6.12C	In scope	Hierarchy of ecosystems and levels of organization.
6.13A	In scope	Development and content of cell theory.
6.13B	In scope	Comparing organisms and their classification.
6.13C	In scope	Variation and its relation to survival.

ESO mapping

ESO	How the standard exercises it
Academic ESO — mastery of core subjects	Secures the life-science core: organization, classification, interdependence.
Academic ESO — critical-thinking skills	Requires causal reasoning connecting structure, process, and survival.
Spiritual ESO — biblical worldview impacting mind	Reads biological order and interdependence as the ordered work of the Creator.
Social ESO — respecting and serving others	Grounds care for living communities and neighbor in the interdependence of created life.

Assessment signature

Summative. An interdependence analysis: the student explains how a described organism is organized and classified and argues how it depends upon and interacts with other organisms and its environment, reasoning about what would happen if a relationship were disrupted. Scored by this Lodestar's rubric.

Formative. Levels-of-organization exercises, classification tasks, and food-web or relationship-mapping prompts.

Rubric

Dimension	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Organization and classification	Explains levels of biological organization and classifies organisms with precise, justified criteria.	Describes organization and classifies accurately.	Describes organization or classification with gaps.	Cannot organize or classify accurately.
Interdependence	Reasons about ecological relationships and predicts the effect of disrupting them, with evidence.	Explains interdependence and relationships accurately.	Identifies relationships but reasons about them weakly.	Cannot connect organisms to their environment.
Structure, process, and survival	Connects an organism's structures and processes to its survival with clear causal reasoning.	Connects structure and process to survival accurately.	Names structures or processes without linking them to survival.	Cannot relate structure to survival.

This rubric scores reasoning and process. It does not score belief or conclusions.

Current-year instance (illustration only, subordinate to the standard). Presently realized in the course's living-things and ecosystems sequences.

Lodestar 6 · The Earth and Its Systems, and the Stewardship of Creation

Standard

The student explains the structure and systems of the Earth and the patterns of the Earth-space environment, and reasons about the wise use and stewardship of natural resources. The student describes Earth's spheres and processes, recognizes patterns among the Sun, Earth, and Moon, and evaluates the management of renewable and nonrenewable resources.

Theological and philosophical anchor

The Earth is an ordered system of interacting parts and repeating patterns, given to humanity not only to understand but to keep. The creation mandate places the human being over the created order as a steward answerable to God, charged to cultivate and protect rather than to exploit, and the study of Earth's systems and resources is where that stewardship becomes concrete in a science course. The student learns to reason about resource use as a matter of wise rule, weighing evidence and trade-offs, which is a discipline of judgment rather than a set of slogans.

TEKS correspondence, strand level

TEKS strand	Disposition	Note
6.9A	In scope	Model the Earth's tilt and the seasons.
6.9B	In scope	Patterns among the Sun, Earth, and Moon, including tides.
6.10A	In scope	Differentiate among Earth's spheres.
6.10B	In scope	Model the layers of the Earth.
6.10C	In scope	Processes in the rock cycle.
6.11A	In scope	Resource management.
6.11B	In scope	Managing energy resources; renewable and nonrenewable resources.

ESO mapping

ESO	How the standard exercises it
Academic ESO — mastery of core subjects	Secures Earth-science content and evidence-based evaluation of resource questions.
Academic ESO — critical-thinking skills	Requires weighing evidence and trade-offs in resource-management questions.
Spiritual ESO — Gospel-oriented contribution to society and culture	Draws the creation mandate of wise-rule and stewardship into scientific reasoning.
Social ESO — servant heart toward fellow humanity	Frames resource stewardship as responsibility to neighbor and community, present and future.
Physical ESO — honoring the body and health	Connects environmental stewardship to human health and wellbeing where relevant.

Assessment signature

Summative. A stewardship case: the student explains a relevant Earth system and then evaluates a resource-management question bearing on it, weighing evidence and trade-offs and defending a recommendation as an act of wise stewardship. Scored by this Lodestar's rubric.

Formative. Earth-system modeling, pattern-prediction exercises, and short resource trade-off analyses.

Rubric

Dimension	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Earth systems and patterns	Explains Earth's systems and predicts Earth-space patterns with precise causal reasoning.	Describes systems and patterns accurately.	Describes systems or patterns with gaps.	Cannot describe the relevant system.
Reasoning about resources	Weighs evidence and trade-offs in a resource question and defends a recommendation, acknowledging what cuts against it.	Evaluates a resource question with relevant evidence.	Offers an opinion with thin or one-sided evidence.	Asserts a position without evidence.
Stewardship reasoning	Frames the question as accountable stewardship and reasons about responsibility to others with care.	Connects resource use to stewardship responsibility.	Mentions stewardship without integrating it into the reasoning.	No stewardship reasoning present.

This rubric scores reasoning and process. It does not score belief or conclusions.

Current-year instance (illustration only, subordinate to the standard). Presently realized in the course's Earth-and-space and ecosystems-and-climate sequences.

Lodestar 7 · Scientific Argument and Communication

Standard

The student constructs and communicates evidence-based scientific arguments, distinguishing what the evidence shows from what it is taken to mean, and represents data and reasoning with clarity and integrity. The student supports claims with appropriate evidence, addresses counter-evidence, and communicates findings in accurate written and visual form.

Theological and philosophical anchor

To do science well is finally to reason truthfully in community: to say what the evidence warrants, no more and no less, and to represent it so that others can weigh it honestly. This is a moral discipline as much as an intellectual one, for it requires truthfulness about what one has and has not shown, and charity toward those who must evaluate the claim. The habit of clear, honest, evidence-governed argument is among the most durable things a science education can form, and it is the capacity on which the whole assessment model of these Lodestars rests.

TEKS correspondence, strand level

TEKS strand	Disposition	Note
6.1	In scope	Scientific and engineering practices: communicating explanations and arguments from evidence.
6.3	In scope	Critical thinking and scientific reasoning to make informed decisions.
6.4	In scope	Communication of valid conclusions supported by data, using appropriate tools and representations.

ESO mapping

ESO	How the standard exercises it
Academic ESO — written communication skills	Directly exercises the graduation-level written-communication outcome.
Academic ESO — critical-thinking skills	Requires claim-evidence-reasoning argument and engagement with counter-evidence.
Academic ESO — technological skills and safe practices	Exercises accurate data representation using appropriate tools.
Spiritual ESO — biblical worldview impacting heart	Treats honest representation of evidence as truthfulness, a formation outcome, not a mere skill.
Social ESO — appropriately interrelating and communicating	Forms the charity and clarity proper to reasoning in community, including peer review.

Assessment signature

Summative. An argument artifact: given a body of evidence from any domain studied, the student writes a claim-evidence-reasoning argument, distinguishes observation from interpretation, addresses the strongest counter-evidence, and represents the data accurately in visual form. This is the reusable synthesis task on which the other Lodestars' summative work draws. Scored by this Lodestar's rubric.

Formative. Claim-evidence-reasoning paragraphs, data-representation critiques, and peer-review exchanges.

Rubric

Dimension	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Claim and evidence	Advances a precise claim fully warranted by well-chosen evidence.	Advances a clear claim supported by relevant evidence.	Claim or evidence present but the fit is loose.	Claim unsupported.
Reasoning and counter-evidence	Reasons explicitly from evidence to claim, separates observation from interpretation, and engages the strongest counter-evidence.	Reasons from evidence and acknowledges counter-evidence.	Reasoning implicit or counter-evidence ignored.	No discernible reasoning.
Representation and integrity	Represents data accurately and honestly, with clear visuals, claiming neither more nor less than shown.	Represents data accurately and communicates clearly.	Representation has inaccuracies or overstates the result.	Representation misleading or absent.

This rubric scores reasoning and process. It does not score belief or conclusions.

Current-year instance (illustration only, subordinate to the standard). Presently realized wherever the course requires written or visual scientific argument; it functions as the assessment spine across all units.

The Set as a Whole

Scope and TEKS Correspondence

This section states what the Lodestar set, taken together, claims and declines. Each entry is a statement about these standards, answerable from the set and the TEKS chapter alone; none describes a course, a unit, or whether content is taught anywhere. Whether a given year's content realizes these standards is a separate course audit, recorded in the course's own accreditation file.

TEKS strand or cluster	Disposition	Owner
Scientific and engineering practices and recurring themes (6.1–6.5).	Within scope	Ratifying body
Matter and its properties (6.6A–E): matter and kinetic energy, pure substances and mixtures, elements, density, evidence of chemical change.	Within scope	Ratifying body
Force, motion, and energy (6.7–6.8): forces, net force, Newton's third law, potential and kinetic energy, energy transformations, waves.	Within scope	Ratifying body
Earth and space, Earth's structure, and resources (6.9–6.11): seasons and Sun-Earth-Moon patterns, Earth's spheres and layers, rock cycle, resource management.	Within scope	Ratifying body
Organisms and environments and ecosystems (6.12–6.13): ecological relationships, hierarchy of ecosystems, cell theory, classification, variation and survival.	Within scope	Ratifying body

Reviewer Charge

Reviewers evaluate the Lodestar set itself, pursuant to ratification, not a course. They verify TEKS correspondence: that the scope statement accurately reflects which strands the set claims and which it declines. They verify ESO alignment: that each Lodestar maps to the outcomes it names and genuinely exercises them. They verify alignment to sound principles of Christian education: that the standards and their anchors are faithful to the Philosophy of Christian Education and Curriculum and Instruction from a Biblical Standpoint. Reviewers assess the standards as written; whether a given year's content realizes them belongs to course review, not to ratification of this document.

Revision Log

Date	Change	Author
2026-07-15	Initial draft of the full Grade 6 science Lodestar set (seven Lodestars), derived from 19 TAC §112.26 and the school's foundational documents.	Claude (proposal)
2026-07-15	Enriched ESO mappings to itemize the specific outcome sub-claims each Lodestar exercises, for fuller coverage evidence. No other content changed.	Claude (proposal)

Ratification

Set review and ratification: grade-level content experts (Science 06 teachers).

Doctrinal ratification of anchors: Head of School; Director of Faith and Values, Dr. Heath Robertson (as needed).

Signatory	Role	Decision	Date