Who decides what, and on what authority.
The College separates academic judgement from institutional governance, from quality assurance, from finance, and from day-to-day administration. This page names who holds each of those, how the standard is set and checked, and which posts are still unfilled — because a governance page that reads as though every board sits would be the most consequential untruth on this website.
Leadership in service of scholarship.
The College is governed through a framework that separates academic judgement, institutional governance, quality assurance, finance and day-to-day administration. That separation is not administrative tidiness. It is what protects every learner, every assessment, every publication and every award the College issues.
No individual, including the Founder, may independently determine academic standards, approve their own work, or override established governance procedure. The College is built to outlast the people currently running it.
Strategic oversight, held apart from management.
The Board preserves the College’s mission, safeguards its academic independence, oversees financial sustainability, and appoints senior officers. Its test for any decision is the long-term interest of learners rather than short-term convenience.
Dr. Ibrahim Musa Al-Khatib, PhD
PhD Higher Education Leadership (Edinburgh); MEd Educational Administration (Birmingham); BA English Language and Literature (Al-Azhar); Fellow, Chartered College of Teaching
Strategic leadership, institutional governance, appointment of senior officers, long-term planning
Professor Mary Elizabeth Thompson, PhD
PhD Applied Linguistics (Cambridge); MA TESOL (Leeds); BA English Studies (Durham); former Professor of Language Assessment
Academic independence, curriculum oversight, external academic advice, quality assurance
Dr. Yusuf Abdulrahman Bello
PhD Applied Linguistics; MA TESOL; B.Ed English Education; Cambridge Assessment Specialist
Academic policy, programme standards, curriculum quality, learning outcomes
Mrs. Grace Nneka Okafor, FCA
MBA Finance; BSc Accounting; Fellow, Institute of Chartered Accountants
Financial oversight, risk management, audit supervision, budget governance
Sheikh Dr. Abdul Hakeem Al-Faruqi
PhD Islamic Education; MA Comparative Ethics; author on educational ethics
Institutional ethics, faith compatibility, values framework, student welfare oversight
Ahmad Sulaimi
No qualification claimed. Areas of interest: English language curriculum design, educational publishing, digital learning systems, international English education
Academic governance, curriculum review, strategic educational planning, institutional development
The College’s highest academic authority.
The Senate oversees academic standards, curriculum development, assessment integrity, research quality and academic regulations. It operates independently of operational management and advises the Board on academic matters.
Professor Daniel Jonathan Williams
PhD Applied Linguistics; MA Language Education; former Dean of Languages
Language acquisition, assessment, curriculum design
Professor Amina Rahman
PhD TESOL; former Cambridge Examiner
Communicative language teaching
Professor David Adewale Johnson
PhD Applied Linguistics
Corpus linguistics, curriculum development
Constituted is not the same as convened. The Senate has 3 appointed members and has not yet met. Until a minuted decision exists, the skill mappings and descriptor thresholds it will approve remain recorded as interim. A membership list is not an approval, and this site will not let one stand in for the other.
What the Senate decides.
The Senate owns the relationship between what a learner is assessed on and what the College then says they can do: which assessments count as evidence for which of the four language skills, and where the thresholds sit that turn that evidence into a descriptor on a learner’s record.
Which assessment evidences which skill
A speaking assignment is evidence of speaking; a quiz is not, however many questions it asks about spoken language. The Senate holds that boundary, because it is the one an institution is most tempted to blur when it wants a fuller record.
How much evidence is enough
A descriptor asserts something about a person. The threshold that triggers it is an academic judgement about sufficiency, not a technical default, and it is the Senate’s to set. Its 3 members were appointed on 2026-08-14; until a minuted meeting exists, thresholds remain the mechanism defaults the software ships, labelled as such.
Daily operation, under policy set by the Board.
The Executive runs the College. It does not set the standards it operates under, and it does not review its own work — those sit with the Senate and with the External Examiner respectively.
Dr. Kaelan Armand
PhD Higher Education Leadership (University College London); MBA International Educational Management; MA Educational Policy; BA International Studies
Institutional leadership, strategic partnerships, executive management, international development, implementation of Board policy
Dr. Sarah Elizabeth Morgan
Academic operations, faculty leadership, quality enhancement, strategic academic planning
Mr. Musa Suleiman
Student records, academic regulations, graduation, institutional documentation, official certification
Mrs. Rebecca Anne Collins
Academic review, institutional audits, policy compliance, continuous improvement, programme evaluation
Mrs. Hannah Grace Osei
Student wellbeing, academic support, learning guidance, student engagement, graduate progression
The post that cannot be filled from inside.
The External Examiner reviews assessments, academic standards, marking consistency and the integrity of awards, and reports directly to the Board of Governors rather than through the Executive. The whole function of the post is to sit outside the College, which is why no appointment made within it can substitute.
The post is not filled. Until it is, awards are defined and published but cannot properly be conferred on anyone, and the College says so on every page where it bears on a decision rather than once in a footnote.
Two bodies, two different reasons nothing is approved yet.
BASCE has no members, and a body with no members cannot approve anything. Every competency decision that would properly belong to it is recorded as interim, taken under authority delegated to the Press, and marked in the database with the body it awaits.
The Senate has 3, and has not yet convened. That is a different position from BASCE’s and it produces the same outcome for now: a body that can approve but has not met has not approved anything, so skill mappings and descriptor thresholds also remain interim. They change status when a minuted decision exists, not when an appointment letter does.
The Board of Academic Standards and Curriculum Excellence.
Defines institutional competencies; maps every assessment to one or more competencies; ensures each competency is assessed multiple times across each level; approves competency descriptors; reviews mappings annually; maintains the integrity of the competency framework.
| Competency | Definition |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Understood the first time, by the audience actually present |
| Command | Controls the language rather than being carried by it |
| Judgement | Chooses register, channel and moment; knows what not to say |
| Reason | Constructs an argument, tests it, concedes what should be conceded |
| Bearing | Holds a room, a call, a difficult conversation |
| Reach | Communicates across cultures, and across the distance between expert and layperson |
How often each competency is actually assessed.
The table above says what the six competencies are. It cannot say how much weight each one currently carries, and the answer is the most useful thing in this section.
Command and Clarity carry most of Level I. Judgement is assessed four times, Reason once, and Bearing and Reach are not assessed at Level I at all. Against the remit quoted above — each competency assessed multiple times across each level — three of the six clear the bar today. Levels II to VI carry no competency mapping yet.
This is published rather than smoothed for the same reason the mappings are recorded as interim: a framework that reports even coverage it does not have is worth less than one that reports uneven coverage it does. The gap is the work, and naming it is how it gets closed.
6 competencies
Each with a definition written to be arguable rather than unfalsifiable. “Understood the first time, by the audience actually present” can be disagreed with; “excellent communication skills” cannot.
Level I only, so far
Every Level I assessment is mapped to the competencies it bears on, with a weight and a written rationale. Competencies are evidenced where they are genuinely assessed rather than distributed evenly to look complete.
0 members appointed
Every mapping is recorded as interim. A board with no members cannot approve, and a test fails the build if any mapping is marked approved while the membership count is zero.
What is actually checked, and how often.
Quality assurance in a new institution is mostly design. The mechanisms that check internal consistency run on every change; the cycles that depend on a year of teaching have not turned. This section separates the two rather than describing them together.
Programme-wide consistency
Every level, module and lesson is checked for structural completeness — objectives, prerequisites, stage timings, assessment coverage — across all six levels on every change.
Against a published policy
Assignment rubrics are checked against the College’s own rubric policy: criteria count, weightings, and the presence of level-appropriate descriptors.
Published figures against the record
Figures published on the website are checked against the academic database. A page cannot claim a module count the curriculum does not have.
One word per concept
Ambiguous terms are retired and the retirement is enforced automatically. One word was carrying three different meanings across the curriculum, the timetable and the platform, and a published figure drifted from the delivered programme for months because of it.
The cycles that need a cohort.
Each of these is specified — who does it, on what evidence, how often. None has run, because each requires teaching that has not happened.
Needs a year
The framework is reviewed annually against what teaching produced. There is no year of teaching to review.
Needs a classroom
Observed teaching is one of five evidence classes in the pedagogical record, and it is the only one that cannot be reasoned out. It is empty, and marked empty.
Needs an external reviewer
No External Examiner is appointed. Until one is, no award can properly be conferred and no external validation exists to report.
Never trust a check because it passed.
A published engineering principle governs this work: continuously verify that the checks themselves measure the complete behaviour they claim to guarantee. It is applied by deliberately breaking each assertion and confirming it fails before restoring it — because a test that has never failed has never been shown to work.
A green deploy that published nothing
A deployment reported success while uploading no files: the upload command was piped, and a pipeline takes the last command’s exit status. The badge was green and the site was months stale. The check now fails properly, and the incident is recorded rather than quietly fixed.
A ban that protected nothing
A rule banning eighteen fictional names from public pages passed for months while the document containing them was itself published, because the checker assumed a directory was not served and nobody verified the assumption against the deploy.
What holding a standard actually requires.
Written for the reader who is not a prospective student — a reviewer, a panel, a ministry, an employer checking a credential.
Published before it is applied
Outcomes, rubrics and pass criteria are published to learners before assessment, not explained afterwards. A standard revealed after the fact is not a standard; it is a justification.
Marked separately, floored separately
The four language skills are marked apart and an overall mark cannot carry a skill below its floor. Unlimited compensation is how a certificate comes to describe someone who cannot be understood aloud.
Written before the teaching
Each assessment exists before the lesson it tests, so the teaching is built toward the standard rather than the standard assembled afterwards from whatever was taught.
Confirmed from outside, or not confirmed
Nothing internal can establish that a level is pitched where it says it is. That requires an External Examiner, and none is appointed — which is why no award has been conferred.
The parts a machine checks.
A programme of this size cannot be held consistent by care. Several properties fail the build when broken, which is the only form of consistency that survives a year of revisions.
Every prerequisite is taught earlier
A lesson depending on something the programme teaches later, or never, is a defect proofreading does not reliably find.
One published policy across all of them
Criteria, weighting and band descriptors follow a single policy, checked automatically. Sixty rubrics drift apart otherwise.
Published figures match the record
Every figure on this website is checked against the curriculum it describes. A published number that quietly stopped being true is how an institution comes to misdescribe itself.
A complete, documented programme
Specifications, outcomes, hours, rubrics, competency mappings and an evidence register of 37 items across 23 collections.
Everything requiring an outside party
No accreditation, no External Examiner, no Academic Reviewer, no approved evidence item, no taught cohort and no graduates. The Board, the Senate and the Executive were appointed on 14 August 2026 and moved none of it: every item on that list requires somebody the College cannot appoint to itself, or a meeting that has not yet happened. The 30 governance decisions are all taken, and they moved none of it either.
Anyone can check a credential. Nothing has been issued to check.
Anyone holding a AIPC credential code can verify it without an account, a relationship with the College or its permission. The route is built and open, and it was built ahead of the first award deliberately: retrofitting a signature onto an already-issued credential proves nothing about when it was issued.
Controls what is disclosed
A graduate decides what a share exposes and whether they appear in the public register at all. A credential the issuer publishes without consent is a disclosure, not a credential.
Needs nothing from the College
An employer or an institution verifying a claim should not have to write to AIPC and wait. The check resolves for anyone holding the code, immediately.
Must be able to be wrong in public
Withdrawal shows as withdrawal rather than deletion. A register that silently loses entries cannot be trusted about the entries it keeps.
On every credential
A verification code, and a scannable code resolving to the same place. Either can be used by anyone.
Checked, not displayed
Credentials are cryptographically signed and the verification checks the signature. A record that can only be looked up can be forged by anyone able to build a convincing page.
Browsable, and opt-in
A public roll of award-holders exists for anyone wanting to confirm a person rather than a document. Appearing in it is the graduate’s decision, not a consequence of graduating.
No findings. Four answerable questions.
Albalagh International Premium College conducts no research: no papers, no conference contributions, no funded projects, no research staff, no findings. A new institution’s research position is an agenda, not an output — these four questions came out of building the programme, and each is answerable with evidence a first term would generate.
Does declaring stage timings change how a lesson runs?
Every lesson declares minutes per stage. Nobody knows whether real teaching converges on them, exceeds them systematically, or ignores them — and the answer would revise either the plans or the practice.
Do the written “common mistakes” match the mistakes learners make?
The support record names the errors each point provokes, derived from the language rather than from observation. A single term of marked work would test that directly, point by point.
Does keeping recordings change pronunciation outcomes?
The Listening Lab retains recordings so improvement is audible. Whether hearing your own earlier attempt actually improves the later one is an empirical question with an obvious design and no answer here.
Do the per-skill floors change who passes?
The adopted honours scheme refuses unlimited compensation between skills. Whether that materially changes outcomes, or merely feels more rigorous, is measurable the moment there are marks.
Including — particularly — against the College. Each question could return an answer that embarrasses a design decision already published and printed, and those are the answers an institution has every incentive to lose. Until then, nothing here should be read as a finding, a preliminary result or work in progress. They are questions.
Every academic decision carries its authority.
A named authority
Each mapping, outcome and threshold records the body it was decided under — BASCE or Senate — and its status. Nothing is recorded as simply true.
A stated rationale
Every competency mapping carries a rationale explaining why that assessment bears on that competency. A mapping without one is an opinion that has acquired the authority of a database row.
An annual cycle
The framework is reviewed annually against the evidence teaching produces. The first cycle cannot run until a cohort has been taught, and the record says so rather than describing a cycle that has never turned.
30 decisions, all in force
Every institutional decision, with its date and the authority that took it. Read the register.
37 items, none approved
Everything an external reviewer would ask for, each in one of four states — including the empty ones. Read the record.
What the College does not have.
Listed rather than omitted. Each of these blocks something specific, and naming what it blocks is more useful than a page that simply stops short.
Required before any award is conferred
The independent post whose entire function is to sit outside the College. Until it is filled, awards are defined and published but cannot properly be conferred on anyone. No internal appointment substitutes for it, which is why filling the Board, the Senate and the Executive has not moved this one.
Required before competencies are approved
The Board of Academic Standards and Curriculum Excellence stands at 0 appointed members. Approval, as opposed to interim adoption, waits on appointment. The Board of Governors has a Governor for Academic Affairs; that is a different body with a different remit, and it is not read as BASCE membership.
Required before skill mappings are approved
The Senate has 3 appointed members and has not yet met. Constituting a body and convening it are two events, and the record holds them separately so that neither can quietly stand in for the other.
Required before publications are reviewed
Every published volume is authored by the Press and has not been read by a qualified reader who did not write it. Each volume states this on its own imprint page. Any of the ten academic staff may now take it; the assignment simply has to be recorded.
Six principles, and every decision is held to them.
- 1
Academic Integrity
Scholarship before convenience.
- 2
Independent Review
No person approves their own work.
- 3
Transparency
Policies, standards and decisions are documented.
- 4
Accountability
Authority carries measurable responsibility.
- 5
Service
Leadership exists to support learning.
- 6
Stewardship
The College is built for future generations, not present personalities.