Nobody could accuse the National College for School Leadership of lacking vision. Its draft framework document, published last week, says it aims to be a “driving force for world-class leadership” in schools.

The best analysis of school leadership needs, by far, can be found in the accompanying report by the college’s own think tank, which provides the vision for the new framework. The values and nature of school leadership, and the ways heads and senior staff can be developed and supported, are well articulated. The college is called on to be a “champion” for school leadership, to take on a formidable agenda of challenges, and to “lead the discourse around leadership for learning”. As a strong supporter of the college I welcome the vision. However, the framework seems to fall short when it comes to translating that vision into reality. Some examples:

* 100,000 senior and middle managers in schools need leadership learning. The framework gives the impression the college is attempting to “rule the leadership world”, and to be very prescriptive about how senior staff should improve their skills. This threatens to sideline many existing and future development programmes that school managers desperately need.

* The framework document recognises that leaders need time to develop their skills. But nowhere is there an understanding that very few heads and senior colleagues can spare such time.

* There is a distinct impression that the college has to pursue the Government’s education strategy. A degree of independence, especially in considering those policies that antagonise school leaders, would not go amiss.

* The suggestion that experienced leaders should take responsibility for the development of the next generation as consultant leaders fails to take into account the enormous pressure on existing school leaders. They are expected to develop advanced specialist schools, set up training schools or consortia, lead on the City Academy programme, contribute greatly to the Government’s White Paper diversification agenda and play a significant role in “rescuing” challenging schools. They are also, of course, being recruited by the private sector in increasing numbers. This is quite apart from the fact that their governing bodies want them to keep up the high standards that their schools have achieved in a highly competitive market.

When it comes to flagship programmes, the framework is in danger of “throwing the baby out with the bath water”. Headlamp, the training for newly-appointed heads, could be tightened up. But I cannot see the case for the rather bureaucratic and prescriptive model presented by the college. Nor am I at all sure that heads, many of whom will recently have completed the National Professional Qualification for Leadership, will want further assessment and compulsory modular programmes. Headlamp participants should retain the freedom to choose their own development programme and who delivers it.

The framework, quite correctly, identifies the stages of school leadership. But its proposals for revamping the hugely successful leadership programme for serving heads threatens radical surgery when only a minor operation is required.

The framework is on stronger ground when it starts to map out its strategic and partnership programmes and short skills courses, although there is a far greater range of needs than the college suggests.

I am sure that the opening of the college’s building at the University of Nottingham next summer could transform its relationship with school leaders. This should be an opportunity for the profession to own a college on a par with those that serve the police, the civil service or the armed forces. Yet I have a nagging doubt whether the college has got the measure of the modern school environment. Its suggestion that dedicated central funding could be used to support a quarter of the entire teaching profession would drive a coach and horses through the management of the Government’s standards fund. The requirement for Headlamp heads to demonstrate that they have spent their training grant “wisely” is patronising, to put it mildly.

The college must resist prescription where it is not necessary. It should revise its framework to make it clear that self-management - practised by autonomous school leaders - is the key to delivering its vision. A true partnership between college and school leaders would then be created and we would have a chance to see the world-class school leadership we all aspire to.

David Hart is general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers