The first half of 2026 has shaken several pillars of vocational training in France. Between a CPF reconfigured by the finance law, new obligations for training organizations, and confirmed pedagogical trends, the regulatory and operational landscape has significantly evolved in just a few months.
Subcontracting Declaration on Mon Compte Formation: An Obligation Still Poorly Understood
Among the measures that have gone relatively unnoticed, training organizations listed on Mon Compte Formation must now make an annual subcontracting declaration for the previous year. The principle is simple: each organization indicates whether or not it has used subcontractors to deliver its training.
Recommended read : Discover the latest in high-tech, gaming, and entertainment to stay informed daily
The stated goal is to enhance transparency in the educational value chain. Cascade subcontracting, common in certain sectors (languages, office skills, security), made quality control difficult for funders. This declaration gives the Caisse des Dépôts an additional lever to identify opaque training circuits.
Some organizations see it as just another administrative formality, while others view it as a step towards cleaning up the market. The concrete effect of this measure on the quality of training offered remains to be documented over the coming inspections. It remains to be seen how it will be monitored and sanctioned in the coming months, especially since several stakeholders are following the news on Avenir Conseil Formation to adjust their practices.
Further reading : The Latest Trends and Tips for Success in the Business World in 2024
CPF Reform 2026: Co-payment of 150 Euros and Capping by Category
The personal training account has undergone two structural changes in quick succession. The first is the increase in the mandatory flat-rate contribution, raised to 150 euros since April 2, 2026 (decree of March 30, 2026). This out-of-pocket expense, initially set at 100 euros, affects anyone using their CPF, with exceptions (job seekers, employees whose employers contribute).
The second change comes from the finance law for 2026 (law n°2026-103 of February 19, 2026), which introduces a capping of the CPF by training category. The caps vary according to the type of certification sought: retraining, driving license, skills assessment, classic professional certification. This mechanism breaks with the previous logic of a fungible CPF, where the holder could freely arbitrate between types of training.
What Capping by Category Changes
Before this reform, an employee could allocate all their rights to a single expensive training course, regardless of the field. Capping now imposes distinct envelopes. A holder wishing to finance both a driving license and a professional certification will have to deal with limits specific to each category.
This change primarily affects the most expensive training and long courses. Training organizations must adapt their pricing offers, while holders are encouraged to seek co-funding (employer, OPCO, Region). The effects on the overall volume of training financed by the CPF will only be measurable at the end of the year.
Pedagogical Formats in 2026: In-Person Holds Strong, Hybrid Declines
The 2026 professional training barometer published by Unow (The Spring of Training) places in-person training at the top of the modalities used. 57% of corporate training is delivered in pure in-person format, a stable proportion for the past three years.
Pure distance learning is slightly increasing, driven by autonomous e-learning modules. In contrast, the hybrid format (a mix of in-person and remote sessions) is declining. This decline raises questions: hybrid was presented as the model of the future after 2020.
Why Hybrid is Losing Ground in Professional Training
Several hypotheses are circulating. The logistical complexity of hybrid training (synchronizing groups in-person and remotely, maintaining engagement on both sides) weighs on organizations. Learners themselves seem to prefer clear-cut formats: either in-person for interaction or autonomous for flexibility.
- In-person remains preferred for behavioral, managerial training, and practical simulations, where direct interaction produces a measurable effect on skill acquisition.
- Autonomous distance learning (e-learning, micro-learning) suits short and repetitive technical training, such as regulatory compliance or mastering digital tools.
- Hybrid retains its relevance for long retraining paths, but its design and facilitation costs hinder its widespread adoption among SMEs.
Artificial Intelligence and Training: Massive Adoption, Still Unclear Framework
The Edflex 2026 barometer indicates that formats incorporating AI receive almost unanimous support among the training managers surveyed. This declarative consensus does not yet reflect operational reality, which remains more varied.
On the learner side, usage is multiplying. According to the AlumnForce barometer, a large majority of students are already using AI in their studies. On the trainer side, the situation is different: the majority of French teachers have not received any training dedicated to integrating AI into their pedagogical practices.
What AI Tools are Coming to Training Organizations
Specialized solutions are beginning to take shape. Digiforma has launched Pétronille, an AI assistant designed for training organizations to automate certain administrative and pedagogical tasks. This type of tool targets course management, content generation, and learner tracking.
The question of ethics remains open. The 2026 continuing education conference, organized by IH2EF, has included the responsible integration of AI among its themes. The development of skills related to AI is also included in the orientations of the “Employment-Future” file published by the Ministry of National Education in May 2026.
- Generative AI is already being used to produce course materials, adaptive quizzes, and course summaries, but its use often remains informal and unregulated.
- OPCOs have not yet published a common framework on AI skills to be integrated into companies’ skills development plans.
- The risk of a divide between equipped organizations and artisanal structures is emerging, without current funding mechanisms providing specific support.
The regulatory framework and pedagogical practices are evolving at different paces. Training organizations face a double challenge: absorbing changes to the CPF while integrating tools whose potential and limits remain to be documented. The end of 2026 will bring the first quantitative assessments of the effects of capping and the co-payment.