What is ‘Backwards Curriculum Planning and Design’?

The term ‘Backward design’ was introduced to curriculum design by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins in their book Understanding by Design (1998, 2005). It was further developed by Doug Lemov as a Teach Like A Champion 3.0 (2021) technique known as ‘backwards planning’. Backward design starts with the intended outcomes and assessment, rather than thinking about this after teaching curricular content. This ensures the focus remains on the core curriculum content and skills. Too often, teachers plan lessons before they are clear about the final outcome. Backwards curriculum planning reverses this process. Once this is clearly agreed and set, the lesson planning process can begin to ensure that all curriculum content is covered, and formative and summative assessment tasks can be planned and embedded. For teachers, departments or subject leaders, the end of a unit becomes the starting point of the planning process.

The three key components of backwards design are:

1. Identify desired results.
2. Determine acceptable evidence.
3. Plan learning activities and instructional materials.

Key questions to consider include:

• What do students already know?
• What must they know and be able to do?
• What will count as reliable evidence of learning?

It is useful to do this as part of a collaborative planning meeting or meetings, as this will support consistency and workload. Collaborative planning supports curriculum coherence and reduces unnecessary workload for teachers and leaders.

Why is it an effective approach to adopt?

The Model for Great Teaching from the Great Teaching Toolkit: Evidence Review (Coe et al., 2020) states:

“Teachers need to know how different ideas in the subject or domain are related, similar, sequential, analogous or distinct. They need to have thought about, and have good answers to, the kinds of ‘Why?’ and ‘What would happen if…?’ questions that students may ask and that teachers themselves should ask to promote connected and higher-order thinking. They should be able to solve the kinds of problems they must help students to solve, and to produce model answers that exhibit the skills and knowledge they need their students to learn.”

Backwards design provides clarity and coherence. When intended outcomes are identified first, teaching becomes purposeful and curriculum-driven rather than activity-led, with lessons carefully sequenced towards a clearly defined endpoint. This approach strengthens the alignment between curriculum, instruction and assessment.

Backwards planning also supports the integration of evidence-informed strategies from the science of learning. Retrieval practice, spaced practice and interleaving are most effective when considered as part of long-term curriculum planning, alongside responsive teaching based on formative assessment evidence. Techniques rooted in cognitive science become more meaningful and powerful when embedded within a coherent curriculum, rather than added superficially. This was a mistake I made initially when I first became familiar with principles from the science of learning, creating tasks inspired by the science of learning but initially doing so lesson by lesson, rather than over the longer term.

As mentioned, this approach can support collaboration, quality assurance and consistency. It provides opportunities for professional learning and reflection, reduces unnecessary workload and promotes an inclusive approach to curriculum design. When departments or phases agree on outcomes and assessment, the planning becomes more focused and consistent. The result is an intentional curriculum, aligned with long-term learning rather than short-term performance.

If you’re looking to build this into your practice and planning, the Great Teaching Toolkit offers a structured breakdown of this technique, alongside a suite of resources designed to help you track and improve your classroom impact.

References:

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (1998) Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Lemov, D. (2021) Teach Like a Champion 3.0. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coe, R., Rauch, C. J., Kime, S. and Singleton, D. (2020) The Model for Great Teaching: Evidence Review. Evidence Based Education. Available at https://evidencebased.education/the-great-teaching-toolkit-evidence-review/