The soul of our subject and rebranding GCSE PE: What’s truly in a name?

Last week, as the guidelines for the 2028 curriculum shift were unveiled, a suggestion hit us with the force of a revelation: what we've always known as GCSE PE might be recast as GCSE Sport Science or Sport Studies. The rationale, it seems, is a desire to align with the evolving concept of physical literacy in core PE, creating a perceived mismatch with the current focus on sports performance and assessment.

This moment calls for a pause, a deep breath, and an earnest reflection. I want to offer a context steeped in our shared history and a heartfelt provocation: Is abandoning the name "GCSE PE" truly a good move for the soul of our subject?

A hard-fought legacy

To understand our future, we must honour our past. GCSE PE is not an ancient entitlement. It is a hard-won victory. It only emerged as an option for young people and their teachers in 1986, approved from the very start of the GCSE movement thanks to the ceaseless, passionate lobbying of a committed group of colleagues.

Before 1986, the former O-levels and CSE qualifications occasionally touched on ‘movement study’, but these were almost entirely practical. The academic recognition we enjoy today was a dream realised through relentless effort.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. We must remember the formidable Physical Education Association (PEA), whose unwavering advocacy in the 1980s secured the future of academic PE. Their journey began even further back with the Ling Physical Education Association (LPEA), founded in 1899. Imagine the fight: transforming a curriculum rooted in military drill and marching into ‘physical training’ and, eventually, the ‘Physical Education’ we know today.

Think of those pioneers in the late 80s, striving to build resources and quality standards from scratch. No internet, no easy resource sharing—just a profound commitment to the subject. Let us truly honour that tireless struggle. Their sacrifice paved the way for the vibrant, thriving subject we have been blessed to teach for decades.

The poignancy of a name

When I read the guidance last week, a deep sense of unease settled over me. While a name change may seem small, it is, in fact, everything. My personal conviction is that we must not—we absolutely cannot—allow the names ‘GCSE PE or ‘A-level PE’ to slip quietly into the past without a serious, principled challenge. Once it’s gone, the fight returns.

This is the simple, heartfelt truth: once the name is relinquished, it is gone forever. ‘GCSE PE’ is more than a title; it is a brand with weight, with history, and with established respect in every community across the UK. The journey to earn that respect was long and arduous. If we let it go, the fight to win it back—or to build equivalent clout for a new name—will be a vertical uphill battle.

We are not merely teachers; we are custodians of this legacy. We owe it to the giants who came before us to defend the integrity of the courses that have benefited millions. Complacent acceptance is untenable.

The fragility of rebranding

Every person below the age of 60 in the UK has a rough, intuitive understanding of what GCSE PE is. That recognition is the subject’s shield. To trade that established respect for a name like ‘Sport Science’ or ‘Sport Studies’—concepts less immediately understood by the public and, crucially, by school leaders—is a profound risk.

If we allow the subject to be rebranded, we risk undermining its long-term security. It is incredibly difficult for a school or college to justify deleting a respected, established qualification like GCSE PE. But to drop a ‘Sport Science’ GCSE for budgetary reasons? That becomes frighteningly easy, potentially underserving the very communities we exist to elevate. We must realise the vulnerability we create when we sacrifice clarity and established clout for ambiguity.

I find myself reflecting deeply on the level of understanding the authors of the recent curriculum documentation possess regarding the complexities of a major subject rebrand. If they are unaware of the profound impact such a change has, they must urgently study the subject. However, if they are fully aware, my concerns escalate gravely, for this rebranding represents an existential risk to the hard-won legacy of GCSE PE. If this is a knowing act, it compels the PE sector to demand serious, candid conversations with those responsible.

A call for true leadership and reform

I must speak with caution, yet with candour, about what this potential rebrand represents. Weak leadership, too often, manifests in two ways: over-application of zero-tolerance, and renaming things without changing anything else.

The latter is a hollow gesture. It’s like rebranding 'literacy' to 'litness' out of shame for some previous literacy strategy without changing a single thing because the core problems haven't been solved. Renaming our subject does not address rigour or our collective practices; it merely transfers any baggage. What's more is the concerning and apparent “distancing” of the core subject of PE from the qualification subject of PE. We do not need to create this distance.

I recognise the current debate surrounding the future direction and naming of our subject. While I fully support the move toward concepts like physical literacy, which I believe fit harmoniously within our current Physical Education framework, I hold a different view on the necessity of a fundamental change driven by an apparent dissatisfaction with the existing name. I believe the PE teaching community has a great deal to be proud of—including our honesty, openness, reflection, and deep commitment to students. Instead of distancing ourselves from the 'Physical Education' title, our energy is better directed towards celebrating our strong foundation and collectively elevating the next generation of our students.

Focusing on the big picture

Changing the name is a distraction from the deep, honest conversations we must have about the actual changes needed in qualification PE. This is where our focus, our energy, and our passion should be directed.

Here are the vital conversations we need to be having, right now:

• Gender-specific physiology: The critical, currently absent, role of female-specific and male-specific physiology, puberty, and maturation on physical activity experiences, including at the elite level.
• The study of the spine and core: The fundamental omission of the study of the spine and core in movement analysis, an essential area of human mechanics that needs immediate inclusion.
• Sociocultural influences: A serious study of the influence of sexual preference on sporting and physical activity participation trends, recognising its power as an indicator of physical activity choices.
• Raising rigour: Addressing the non-rigorous standards that have evolved in the teaching of certain topic areas, particularly mechanics, skill acquisition, and sociocultural studies.
• Assessment in the AI era: Confronting the issue of asynchronous assessment, which can no longer continue in the era of artificial intelligence.
• Exam-board sensitivity: Discussing the issue of whether some exam board officers truly possess the deep awareness and sensitivity required for the subject of qualification PE.
• Clarity in command words: The need to ensure PE exam command words are rigorously and consistently utilised across all exam board assessments.

This is the change that matters. This is the conversation that will truly secure our future. A name change is a hollow shell if we are not willing to have honest, ongoing discussions about these deep, necessary reforms.

So, readers, there is my plea. Maybe this conversation needs to be had openly. Maybe we, the teachers on the ground, need to challenge our leaders and hold their feet to the fire of genuine reform. Maybe we need to honour our history and not surrender this valuable legacy without a fight.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is still incredible life and power in the name we know and cherish: GCSE PE.

James Simms