When studying the surface value of  backwards planning, it has connotations of teaching to a standardized test and not to a student. What is sorely lacking in our teacher-training at many post-secondary institutions is the recognition that the teacher must master the content and practice of what she/he hopes to teach before attempting to pass her/his craft along to students. It would be like watching a film where the actors are all holding onto their scripts, looking at the camera or the director just off-screen and not reaching the audience on any meaningful level. Standardized testing exists for the most part as a means for people without students in front of them to collect data to justify their positions in educational bureaucracies. For too long teachers have simply agreed that there is no other way and backwards planning supports a dysfunctional system that does not put the student at the centre.

     Backwards planning makes the assumption that the teacher does not know what the students need to know about the subject or discipline and must rely on a standardized “benchmark” instead of teaching individuals how to move on with their lives in a civilized society. It is naïve to approach any form of learning in this way. The student and the teacher must work together to realize the potential that already exists in the student. The master teacher must know the content inside-out so that she/he can guide the student to fill the structure of the lesson with student-generated content. That way the student can take ownership of the lesson and have it carry a lasting impact. Textbook lessons do not sustain in the schema of the student’s life. Education is not a machine and should stop being treated as such. Backwards planning serves the bureaucracy, not the student. Planning backward removes the individual from the lesson by placing the “big idea” and “learning outcome” ahead of the student’s own prior knowledge, developed skill sets, and genuine interest in the subject matter. To truly teach a student, the very idea of standardized lessons that anyone can administer becomes repugnant at best and an insult to the individual student.