The concept of backwards planning is thrown around a lot in D.C. Public schools.  A version of Understanding By Design, adapted for D.C. Public schools, was the first book I was given at teacher orientation. The book said that backwards planning isn’t teaching to the test. Instead, it’s teaching to a series of tests–some formative and some summative, but the tests are really good–designed to measure rigorous goals–so it’s ok.

I know in a college course, this is a very different conversation.  Courses are more often structured around lectures and reading lists rather than student learning and experience, and district standards aren’t a factor.

I have to admit, before this week I hadn’t read the actual book by Wiggins and McTighe, but I cringe when I hear their names.  Too many professional development sessions designed to help me “align” my curriculum

I was surprised when I read UBD’s aspects of understanding that included empathy and self-knowledge.   The backwards design focus has teachers prioritize such big goals, (that are carefully worded but still subject to interpretation).  If we create courses for goals that include all of these dimensions, can we really reach them? Is a course supposed to do so much?  And especially in the case of young students, are the same goals appropriate for all students?

My teacher training consisted almost solely of two things: behavior management and backwards-designed long-term plans, units, and lessons. So much attention and priority is placed on what course goals are worthy (D.C. switched this year to the Common Core) and how we will assess those goals, and so little attention to how we actually teach these things.  Lee Fink says that teachers have two chief responsibilities: planning a course and interacting with students.  Because of some districts’ conceptions of backwards design, I think the quality of teacher-student interaction, learning activities, and the classroom experience as a whole has suffered.