Between standards, quality, internationalization and governance, the language of instruction is becoming a tool to reduce competition between educational systems. We evaluate the recent MFHEA circular and stakeholder involvement.

The language of instruction is one of the most important structural elements in higher education and tertiary education systems. It affects not only learning methods, but also the accessibility of programmes, student mobility, the internationalisation of institutions and the overall competitiveness of an education system.

In recent years, there has been a growing regulatory focus on the use of languages in teaching in Europe, often accompanied by tensions between the need to protect national languages, quality objectives and international opening strategies. In this context, the language of instruction becomes a balancing ground between academic autonomy, public policies and European principles.

This paper aims to analyze the issue in a structured way, starting from the comparative European framework, and then deepening the implications for quality and internationalization, up to the Maltese case and the recent MFHEA communication, with particular attention to governance profiles and stakeholder consultation.

Language of instruction in the European context: patterns and trends

In the European panorama, there is no single model in the field of the language of instruction. Member States adopt different approaches, reflecting cultural traditions, constitutional arrangements and strategies for the development of higher education, while respecting their national competences in the field of education.

Some countries, such as Germany, Austria and Sweden, allow a wide use of English alongside the national language, especially at the master’s and doctoral level, without introducing generalized restrictions. In other contexts, such as France and Italy, the national language retains a central role, but there are regulated exceptions for international or joint programmes, often formalised through legislative or regulatory interventions.

In recent years, more restrictive models have also emerged, such as in the Netherlands or Latvia, where the legislator has intervened to limit the use of foreign languages, justifying these choices with the need for sustainability of the system, protection of linguistic identity or control of the flow of international students. In these cases, the language of instruction becomes the subject of direct political intervention, often accompanied by public debates, academic opposition and, in some cases, legal disputes.

At the European jurisprudential level, the Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified that language restrictions in higher education may constitute a limitation on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, as stated in the judgment C391/20 (Latvia). In that ruling, the Court recognised that the protection of the national language may be a legitimate objective, but only if it is pursued by means of measures provided for by law, proportionate and accompanied by appropriate exceptions to international programmes and academic cooperation.

Similar guidelines also emerge from previous case-law, including the Groener judgment  (C-379/87), which allows language requirements in education only if justified and not excessive in relation to the aim pursued, and from Italian national case-law on the case of the Politecnico di Milano, which excluded the possibility of eliminating the national language entirely from the educational offer.

The common element at European level is that these choices, when they substantially affect the educational offer and institutional autonomy, are generally adopted by the legislator or through government regulations, and not through administrative acts of an informative nature.

Quality, internationalization and language of instruction

The relationship between the language of instruction and the quality of education is often the subject of simplifications. European Quality Assurance (ESG) standards do not associate quality with a specific language, but with the consistency of programmes, the competence of the teaching staff, the clarity of educational objectives and transparency towards students.

From the point of view of internationalization, the possibility of offering programs in multiple languages is a tool used to attract international students, develop joint programs and foster transnational academic cooperation. Restricting the language of instruction can have direct effects on a system’s ability to participate fully in the European Higher Education Area.

At the same time, several studies highlight the need to avoid a monolingualization of the offer, which could marginalize national languages or reduce inclusiveness for certain categories of students. The point of balance, in the European context, is generally identified in flexible models, which allow the use of several languages within a clear and proportionate regulatory framework.

In this perspective, the language of instruction is not considered an end in itself, but a variable to be governed according to the objectives of quality, access and development of the system.

Governance, proportionality and the role of stakeholders

Policies on the language of instruction inevitably raise governance issues. In the most consolidated European systems, decisions affecting the design of the educational offer are generally preceded by consultation processes with universities, training institutions, students, social partners and quality bodies.

Stakeholder involvement is considered an essential element to ensure:

• regulatory predictability.
• proportionality of the measures adopted.
• legitimacy of decisions.
• alignment with labour market and mobility needs.

Comparative experience shows that the absence of consultation tends to amplify institutional conflict and weaken the effectiveness of language policies. The language of instruction, precisely because it affects academic, economic and cultural aspects, requires a participatory and evidence-based approach.

European reference bodies, such as ENQA and EQAR, also stress that language policies must be consistent with the principles of inclusiveness, non-discrimination and respect for institutional autonomy, which are central elements in ESG.

The Maltese case and the recent MFHEA circular

In the Maltese context, the language of instruction has historically been a factor of attractiveness, thanks to the presence of English as the language of instruction and assessment, alongside Maltese as the national language. The Maltese accreditation system has never placed limits on the delivery of programs in different languages, on the contrary, this peculiarity has managed to attract several educational projects with international students from all over the world.

The recent MFHEA Circular No. 10/2025, which limits the approval of teaching languages other than English and Maltese, except for language courses, introduces a significant change in the regulatory framework of the sector. The measure was motivated by the need to ensure consistency and clarity in the accreditation and audit processes, which are carried out in English and, in some cases, in Maltese.

However, the way the circular was adopted raises substantial questions of governance and institutional competence. The reasons given by the MFHEA are in fact attributable exclusively to the management of administrative and quality assurance processes, which even before the issuance of the circular were carried out entirely in English or Maltese. Accreditation applications, documentation submitted by providers, as well as assessment and audit activities have historically been conducted in English (or Maltese), without the use of different languages in teaching provision ever constituting an operational obstacle.

In this perspective, the decision to limit the language of instruction in a general way does not appear to be directly linked to the procedural requirements referred to in the circular. The reference legislation governs, in fact, the language to be used in the administrative procedure and in relations with the supervisory authority, but does not give the MFHEA the power to intervene on the language of instruction of academic programs. A choice of this type affects a structural element of the educational offer and falls, by nature and impact, within the scope of educational policies, which according to the national and European regulatory framework are ordinarily reserved to the legislator or the Government through legislative or regulatory instruments, and not to the supervisory authority through administrative acts of an informative nature.

Added to this is the lack of consultation with stakeholders and the Advisory Committee, provided for by national legislation as an advisory body precisely to address systemic issues. The absence of a prior discussion appears to contrast with the practices of good governance adopted in other European contexts.

In the comparative landscape, restrictions on the language of instruction are generally introduced through legislative interventions, often accompanied by structured exceptions and public debate, as shown by the cases of the Netherlands and Latvia. The adoption of a similar measure by means of an administrative circular may affect the perception of predictability of the system and the confidence of operators.

For a country like Malta, which competes internationally in the field of education, the issue is not exclusively about language, but about the correct balance between the role of the legislator, the functions of the regulatory authority and the participation of stakeholders. An approach based on institutional dialogue and a clear delimitation of competences could help to identify solutions consistent with European standards and the development needs of the system.

Final considerations on the regulatory framework

The language of instruction is a structural dimension of educational policies, with direct effects on the quality of training pathways, equal access to education, academic mobility and the international attractiveness of education systems.

The European experience shows that the most balanced models are those that value multilingualism as a resource, avoiding restrictive and nationalistic approaches and adopting proportionate, clear solutions consistent with the objectives of quality and inclusion. In the Maltese context, the debate generated by the recent MFHEA circular offers the opportunity to reflect more broadly on the positioning of the national education system within the European Higher Education Area.

An approach that recognises the value of a multilingual education system, supported by structured institutional dialogue and stakeholder involvement, can help strengthen the sustainability, credibility and competitiveness of the sector in the medium and long term.