The individualized education plan (IEP) for Steve indicated that he was learning disabled, but did not specify the extent of his disability. Steve has had an IEP for four years and each had indicated a counseling requirement. At conception, the goal of the counseling sessions was to provide Steve with someone to talk to because, according to the IEP, Steve was voluntarily isolating himself from social interactions. Things went south last school year, when Steve showed up with increasingly low attendance and constant arguments when he was present at school. As in Wood and Hollis (2000), “Not only are initial goals modified as treatment proceeds, but other problems also emerge; clients raise these issues for discussion, thereby broadening the scope of treatment” (p. 327). During the evaluation I met with Steve, his mother and the attendance counselor to assess the problem with attendance and discuss ways to encourage regular attendance at school. At the end of the meeting, a goal of increased participation was set so that Steve could improve his academic grades. During our first meetings, Steve had remained withdrawn. Steve refused to give reasons for the problems at school. Brandell (2010) stated, “Adolescents often demonstrate resistance before and during the course of therapy because of their desire for autonomy and their fear that the therapist, a parental agency, will attempt to transform them…” (p . 141). This manifestation of refusal to compulsory treatment in the preliminary stages of my work with Steve provided the opportunity to actively involve him in addressing the issue within a “safe enough space”. However, it became apparent that Steve did not want to discuss poor attendance and behavioral problems because it caused him great distress… half the battle… by helping the student, the clinician is better able to establish the therapeutic alliance. Steve and I explored his feelings about having an IEP and, in turn, receiving special education classes. During our sessions, Steve was visibly upset, often expressing dislike toward other children in special education. Additionally, Steve was adamant that he did not need “slower” classes than other high school students. In Brandell (2010), “A resistance comparison should be offered in the spirit of analytic inquiry, with the clear intent to engage the client's curiosity and self-observation” (p. 248). In a relational working alliance, I challenged Steve in an effort to promote self-awareness. Awareness of the defenses he was adopting to address the stigma associated with special education labeling, defenses that were interfering with his academic success.