Navigating the translator's dilemma: a critical policy analysis of Italy’s 2025 national curriculum for physical education

This paper presents a critical policy analysis of Italy's proposed 2025 National Curriculum for Physical Education (PE), situating the reform within a global re-evaluation of the subject's purpose. It investigates the extent to which this reform signifies a genuine paradigm shift from a traditional, pathogenic model of ‘healthism’ to a salutogenic, Physical Literacy-informed approach. The analysis centres on two strategic documents: the draft Indicazioni Nazionali 2025 and the consensus paper published by the Italian Society of Motor and Sport Sciences (SISMES), the independent academic body providing the scientific benchmark for the discipline. Utilising Bacchi's ‘What's the Problem Represented to Be?’ framework, the study deconstructs the conceptual underpinnings of the proposed changes. The analysis reveals that the Italian reform represents a deliberate attempt to move the discipline beyond a narrow focus on fitness and disease prevention. The documents articulate a clear commitment to a holistic vision grounded in salutogenesis and Physical Literacy, emphasising the integrated development of the person. However, the central finding identifies a significant internal tension, conceptualised as the ‘Translator’s Dilemma’. While the curriculum’s philosophical preamble champions complexity, its operational structure of specific learning objectives struggles to escape a more traditional, analytical, and performance-focused language, revealing a disjuncture between vision and operationalisation. The paper concludes that this friction illustrates the systemic challenges inherent in embedding a complex, process-oriented pedagogical philosophy into the linear architecture of a national curriculum. While the Italian case positions its policy at the vanguard of international reform, its ultimate success is contingent upon a synchronised investment in teacher education and the evolution of assessment practices. These must be re-imagined to equip practitioners to navigate the curriculum’s inherent tensions and fully realise its ambitious, salutogenic potential.