For starters it is important to understand and know sponsorship as a whole, Brandt stated, “Sponsors as I have come to think of them, are any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy – and gain advantage by it in some way” (556). Brandt believes that there are two polar sides to sponsorship, positive and negative influences, also known as sponsorship through facilitation and withholding. In his definition it is evident that sponsorship can’t be both a positive and negative impact, this can be seen by the word choice of “or” in the quote. This simplistic approach and definition can be seen and supported by Kenny Goddu’s story. He starts off by explaining how in Catholic school teachers are encouraged to help the successful students and let the struggling ones fail. This is due to wanting to produce a couple prodigies rather than all mediocre students due to being held behind by the slower minded ones. Kenny was unfortunately one of the individuals who never received the help and attention he deserved. With this said he struggled significantly with reading and never learned until third grade. And the only reason he did learn to read was because he transferred to a public school. Not only this but this withholding of information and knowledge impacted how Kenny viewed himself as a student, “For me it impacted me to think that I’m never going to be as good as the other kids. I’ll never been that top student in the class. To me it came and hit hard” (1). This example shows how withholding help and desired resources can negatively affect a student as a whole as well as the given subject itself. The withholding sponsors of the Catholic school teachers had nothing positive to contribute to Kenny’s image of himself, school or reading. They in fact suppressed literacy, fitting the definition of Brandt’s to the t.
With that said I believe that there is a major gap in the definition above, I believe that sponsorship through withholding can provide positive feedback that it doesn’t have to be either “enable … or withhold literacy” (Brandt 556). It may not have occured in Kenny’s story but it is evident in others. For example, in Sarah Manuels’ personal narrative her original teacher Ms. Lefrancios never gave her a proper answer without negativity and attitude. And due to this environment that she created, Sarah often stopped asking questions both in and after class. Even before this problem arose, Sarah relied heavily on her mom for schoolwork help.Yet, around this same time unfortunately her parents got a divorce which caused her to be busier due to being a newly single mom. She was unable to support Sarah like she had done previously with academics. Due to both of her usual main support systems being unavailable (her teacher and her mom) Sarah was forced to reach out to other resources, “Without my mom being there to help me with my reading and writing twenty-four seven , and Ms. Lefrancios not wanting to help me out during class I was able to use various resources. The sources I used were Mr. Kehowski, the internet, books, and even my friends” (3). Her branching out for help shows independence. She was forced to solve her own problem and step out of the box to do so. It may have not been completely on her own, but, she still benefited from struggling and being withheld her usual resources. I think learning to adapt and overcome is a very necessary and important skill in academics as a whole, not just English, to be resourceful is success. Sarah even mentioned “However, I was wrong. I learned more than I thought I would in the end” (Manuels 1). This shows how her sponsor as a withholder in a way positively impacted her. Indirectly of course but it still allowed for growth in literacy and as a person in the end.
