It’s almost too easy to turn kids off from reading if a sponsor is obviously teaching for the wrong reasons. Brandt is aware of this pattern and warns her readers to identify sponsors’ motives (167). These corrupt sponsors are damaging to students and can cause people to label themselves as victims. This victim mentality may carry into adulthood and literacy appreciation could be lost forever. Brandt’s right that not all sponsors of literacy are genuinely just trying to teach literacy, but I disagree with her belief that all sponsors have an alternative, selfish motive besides sharing literacy. Sponsors that are really just trying to teach oftentimes miss the mark and get labeled as bad sponsors. This kind of sponsorship is also bad because kids still perceive themselves to be victims, regardless of the intent of the sponsor.  This is important because when students see themselves as victims of literacy, they are more likely to shy away from ever trying to develop more literary skills compared to students that simply got bored of reading or writing in school. Of course, there are exceptions to this concept. A lot of kids that feel beaten down by a negative sponsor are uplifted by a new sponsor of literacy after, whether it be a parent or a teacher. It would be interesting to study how long it takes for victims of bad literacy sponsorship to regain their confidence in the classroom.