Technical analysis of the open regulatory issues on MFHEA Communication 04/2026 and Blended Learning, including uncertain legal basis, lack of pedagogical basis and lack of consultation of the educational sector.

On 24 February 2026, the Malta Further and Higher Education Authority published Communication 04/2026, introducing new operational provisions on the delivery of educational programmes. Two measures, in particular, have produced immediate effects on the entire audience of licensed providers and subjects in the licensing phase:

• the prohibition of issuing new licenses to entities that intend to operate exclusively online; and the introduction of a mandatory ratio for Blended Learning programs, which establishes a minimum of 40% of physical delivery and a maximum of 60% of online delivery.

Both measures entered into force with immediate effect, without a transitional period and without prior notice to industry operators.

MQE follows the evolution of this regulatory framework with constant attention. This article does not intend to express an opinion on the policy objectives underlying the measures introduced, which respond to legitimate concerns regarding the quality of the educational offer. Instead, it intends to point out to its network some open technical and regulatory issues that anyone who operates, or intends to operate, in the Maltese higher education sector cannot ignore.

The previous framework: what official sources said

To understand the scope of the issues raised by Communication 04/2026, it is necessary to start from what the official regulatory framework established up to the time of its adoption.

The Referencing Report 2024, with which the MFHEA updated the referencing of the Malta Qualifications Framework (MQF) to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) — a document published by the Authority itself and validated at European level, defines blended learning in these terms: the relationship between online and face-to-face delivery is determined by the teacher and/or the needs of the programme, based on the relevant pedagogical principles,  with both modalities being integrated into the program.

The definition of Blended Learning is clear: the relationship between the delivery methods is a pedagogical and programmatic variable, not a predetermined administrative parameter.

This approach was consistent with the standards of the MFHEA’s EQA Accreditation Manual, whose performance indicators for blended and online programs (Standards 6.13 and 6.14) are based on qualitative criteria, consistency between delivery methods, learning outcomes and assessment methodologies, and not on quantitative thresholds of physical presence.

It was also consistent with the European reference framework. The European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015), to which the MFHEA is committed as an ENQA affiliate, are explicitly designed to apply to higher education regardless of the mode of delivery. They do not prescribe minimum percentages of physical presence. The consolidated European parameter is the quality of the training experience, not the arithmetic proportion between two modes of delivery.

Technical issues relating to blended learning that arise

The comparative analysis between Communication 04/2026 and the body of documentation published by the MFHEA highlights a series of issues that, more than four months after the adoption of the measure, remain unanswered publicly.

The legal basis of the measure. Chapter 607 of the Laws of Malta and S.L. 607.03 govern the MFHEA’s competencies and licensing and accreditation procedures. Chapter 607 Section 25(i) reserves to the Minister responsible for education the power to regulate licensing and accreditation processes through subordinate legislation published in the Government Gazette. The Maltese system of sources of law, in line with the principle of legality, distinguishes between internal administrative acts, communications, circulars, guidelines, which specify and apply rules already established by higher sources, and the instruments through which new legally binding obligations are created for private subjects. The question that arises is whether Communication 04/2026, insofar as it introduces new general and abstract quantitative requirements applicable to all present and future providers, finds an identifiable legal basis within this framework.

The absence of a declared pedagogical foundation. The 40% threshold is introduced without any reference to the scientific literature on blended learning, without indication of the quality standards considered, and without specification of the calculation metric. International research on blended learning, consolidated over more than two decades of empirical studies, does not support fixed relationships between delivery methods as determinants of quality. The quality of blended learning is a function of the coherence of the pedagogical design, not of the position on a quantitative continuum. The absence of a stated foundation makes it impossible for providers and academic professionals to assess whether the threshold is appropriate for the specific contexts in which they need to apply it, by discipline, MQF level, program type, student population.

The inconsistency with the MFHEA’s accreditation standards. This is, in our opinion, the most significant point of tension on a technical level. Standards 7.1 and 7.8 of the EQA Accreditation Manual, and Standards 4.1 and 4.6 of the MFHEA Programme Accreditation Standards, establish a fundamental institutional obligation: providers must be able to adapt delivery methods and pedagogical methods based on evidence, in response to the needs of their student population and with a view to continuous improvement. These standards require flexibility, methodological pluralism and response to evidence. A fixed quantitative requirement that disregards institutional evidence is in direct tension with the implantation of these standards. The two obligations, adjusting the disbursement methods on the basis of evidence, and maintaining a fixed threshold regardless of the evidence, are not simultaneously satisfiable in all institutional contexts.

The internal inconsistency of Communication 04/2026. The definition of blended learning contained in Annex B of the same Communication recognizes the student’s control over place, time, path and rhythm as a defining characteristic of blended learning. The Annex C operating requirement, which mandates a minimum physical presence of 40% at a supervised physical location, directly limits that on-site control for the most relevant part of the program. The definition and the operational requirement contradict each other within the same document.

The unresolved interaction with the ECTS framework and with Communication 09/2025. Communication 04/2026 does not specify with respect to which metric 40% is calculated: percentage of planned contact hours, percentage of total load in terms of ECTS, percentage of scheduled teaching sessions, or other basis. Different interpretations produce significantly different operational requirements. The Communication also does not clarify how the 40% requirement interacts with the synchronous contact requirements introduced by MFHEA Communication 09/2025 on online learning, in particular about the classification of synchronous online delivery as a physical or online component.

The lack of prior consultation of operators. It does not appear that the sector was involved in any structured consultative phase prior to the adoption of Communication 04/2026. Licensed providers, academic institutions and international operators received notice of immediately binding operational requirements without prior notice, without opportunity to contribute to their elaboration, and without any public indication that a review of the delivery conditions was in progress. This contrasts with the principles of transparency and stakeholder involvement that the European Quality Assurance System, and the MFHEA itself, in its public communications, recognises as fundamental to the legitimacy and effectiveness of regulatory governance.

The practical implications for operators

Those who currently operate with blended learning programs or are considering entering the Maltese market with models with a predominantly digital component, must carefully consider their position with respect to these requirements.

For providers already licensed with accredited programs whose physical presence component is less than 40%, Communication 04/2026 introduces an uncertainty of retroactive compliance that must be verified with the MFHEA. The absence of transitional provisions means that existing programmes are exposed to the issue without a clear deadline for adaptation.

For providers in the preparation of an application for a license or accreditation, the operational advice of MQE is to structure the programs in a way that is compatible with the requirements of the Communication in their current formulation, regardless of the technical evaluation of the open issues. Regulatory issues follow their own institutional path; Licence applications must be constructed based on the framework applicable at the time of submission.

For international operators assessing Malta as a jurisdiction for programmes with a high online component, the measures introduced by Communication 04/2026 significantly redefine the conditions of market access. An up-to-date feasibility assessment is necessary before any investment decision.

In all cases, the recommendation is not to proceed without a detailed verification of one’s regulatory position and to actively monitor developments in the regulatory framework.

The position of MQE

MQE follows the evolution of this issue through a systematic activity of documentary analysis and dialogue with the competent institutions. We have initiated a formal dialogue with the MFHEA on the technical issues described here, sending in-depth technical notes and we will follow their developments with the same attention that we reserve for all aspects of the Maltese regulatory framework.

We will update our network as soon as official clarifications, changes to the current framework, or relevant developments in the ongoing institutional dialogue are available.

Providers and operators who wish to assess their specific position with respect to the measures introduced by Communication 04/2026, or who are planning access to the Maltese market, are invited to contact us for a regulatory orientation session.