One of the tricks about influencing that I’ve learned over many years is that it is always best to work with people in order to achieve mutual goals. Understanding what they want is the first step towards creating win-win situations.

Most of the time, at the Association of Colleges (AoC) this is what we do. Our work is done quietly, behind closed doors, and is very effective. But we decided on another route when the establishment of a new school sixth form was agreed by a regional schools commissioner.

The opening of school sixth forms has been a sensitive issue for as long as I have been involved in further education. All too often, they will undermine the breadth of high-quality courses available to young people, as well as the viability of some institutions (including colleges) and partnerships in the area.

This has happened in recent years through the sixth-form presumption, academy conversion and the opening of new free schools. The result is that the rate of new openings has continued despite austerity and the declining 16- to 18-year-old population, both of which have made it harder to run a broad and high-quality offering in schools and colleges.

The AoC has supported many colleges in challenging these decisions, with frankly limited success. That’s why we made it a priority to ask for stronger rules. We were delighted, therefore, when the government responded in March 2016 with updated guidance, setting out five tests that should be passed before a new sixth form would be approved. We thought we had won an important battle through effective and dogged work.

Challenging this decision is not easy or without risk but it is simply the right thing to do

A few weeks later, though, you might imagine our dismay when a regional schools commissioner approved a new sixth form that seemed to us to fail all five tests. We worked with the principal of the local college to challenge the decision but were frustrated by unsatisfactory replies. That’s when we considered the “nuclear option” and decided, somewhat reluctantly, to jointly launch with the college a judicial review against the decision.

Our action was based on the need for clarity about the nature of the guidance. In particular, we felt we needed to test where power ultimately lay in cases like this.

We felt that this was important at the time, but now believe it is even more critical because of the Green Paper published last week on the establishment and growth of selective schools. The Department for Education’s rules, published in March, also govern changes made by current grammar schools. It is highly likely, therefore, that the new policy on selective schools will result in decisions being made by regional schools commissioners under similar conditions.

Our judicial review, when it is resolved, will help to determine how binding and powerful that guidance might be. We will know whether regional schools commissioners operate within a published framework of rules, or whether they can ignore them in the name of ministerial powers. If the latter is the case, then our next influencing challenge will be to suggest to MPs and peers that they need to find new ways to limit those powers.

Taking this route to challenge a decision we believe was unjustified is not an easy one and is not without risks. Sometimes, standing up for what you believe is simply the right thing to do; in this case we have done this because we’re passionate about offering a broad, high-quality education for every young person, and we believe that colleges are vital in securing that.

David Hughes is chief executive of the Association of Colleges @AoCDavidH