ORIGINAL 

When people are exposed to a corrupt sponsor, they’re quick to lose their interest in literacy altogether. In his literacy narrative, Learning to not Hate English from the Rising Cairn literacy narrative archive, Austin Scaglione talks about a pregnant high school English teacher that didn’t even try to teach. Scaglione loved to read when he was young until Mrs. Lofromento caused him to lose momentum. Throughout the narrative, it’s clear that he believes he is a “victim” (Williams 344). This is essential to understanding the lasting impact his negative sponsor left on him. He claims to have been “setback in my learning techniques” and that the class set him up for failure his senior year (Scaglione). Scaglione caught on quickly that Mrs. Lofromento, who only required the class to read one book, was only a literacy sponsor (if she can even be called that) to collect a salary. She didn’t care that her students were not learning because her maternity leave began in the middle of the year. Had Mrs. Lofromento spent more time in class teaching and less on Facebook (Scaglione), she would have been able to help her students further develop their literacy skills. His work shows that teachers aren’t really teaching to educate all the time. This is the kind of selfish sponsor Brandt warned people about. “They [sponsors] lend their resources or credibility to the sponsored but also stand to gain benefits from their success” (Brandt 167). Scaglione’s narrative provides evidence for Brandt’s idea that sponsors are always working to benefit themselves. This self-centered mindset is exactly what caused Scaglione to lose his passion for reading in the first place, and was disturbing enough to make him into a victim. It’s near impossible for students to engage in class and maintain their interest in literacy when negative sponsors or teachers don’t care about their learning. Negative sponsors aren’t always as blatantly disinterested as Mrs. Lofromento. In fact, negative sponsors oftentimes have a passion for teaching.

REVISED

When people are exposed to a corrupt sponsor, they’re quick to lose their interest in literacy altogether. In his literacy narrative, Learning to not Hate English from the Rising Cairn literacy narrative archive, Austin Scaglione talks about a pregnant high school English teacher that didn’t even try to teach. Scaglione loved to read when he was young until Mrs. Lofromento caused him to lose momentum. Throughout the narrative, it’s clear that he believes he is a “victim” (Williams 344), meaning someone that has been exposed to bad teaching. William’s classification of the victim doesn’t mention the motives of a sponsor, because it doesn’t really matter. What matters is how a literacy learner views themselves. This is essential to understanding the lasting impact Scaglione’s negative sponsor left on him. He claims to have been “setback in my learning techniques” and that the class set him up for failure his senior year (Scaglione). Scaglione caught on quickly that Mrs. Lofromento, who only required the class to read one book, was only a literacy sponsor (if she can even be called that) to collect a salary. She didn’t care that her students were not learning because her maternity leave began in the middle of the year. His work shows that teachers aren’t really teaching to educate all the time. This is the kind of selfish sponsor Brandt warned people about. “[Sponsors] lend their resources or credibility to the sponsored but also stand to gain benefits from their success” (Brandt 167). Scaglione’s narrative provides evidence for Brandt’s idea that sponsors are always working to benefit themselves. This self-centered mindset is exactly what caused Scaglione to lose his passion for reading in the first place, and was disturbing enough to make him into a victim. It’s near impossible for students to engage in class and maintain their interest in literacy when negative sponsors or teachers don’t care about their learning. This example of a narrative affirms BraNegative sponsors aren’t always as blatantly disinterested as Mrs. Lofromento. In fact, negative sponsors oftentimes have a passion for teaching.

ORIGINAL

Sponsors with good intentions can be perceived as negative if a student is highly sensitive. These well-meaning sponsors have the same stunting effect on literacy development as the self-centered sponsors Brandt describes. Since it’s difficult to grade English objectively, students may get oversensitive about their grades. This can be seen in Alexis Criss’ literacy narrative The Tale of how I Learned to Truly Dedicate Myself in School. In the narrative, Criss writes about getting a B+ on a paper that her friends all go As on, even though they all worked closely together. The experience made Criss recoil from learning in that class, and she wouldn’t ask her teacher, Mrs. Burdo, about why she got the grade she got for fear of the teacher disliking her “any more than I thought she already did by complaining about a grade.” Williams would categorize Criss’ narrative as a victim narrative, like Scaglione. When reading this narrative, I couldn’t help but think that Mrs. Burdo was just doing her job. She most likely saw places that could be improved upon, and graded the assignment in a way she felt would push her student to do better next time. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Burdo is not unlike Skylah Buchanan’s first-grade sponsor that lead to her still reading “good happy, silly, fun books” today. Mrs. Simmons, her teacher, was considered a positive sponsor for challenging Buchanan to read harder books. Mrs. Burdo and Mrs. Simmons were both trying to challenge their students so they would leave their respective classrooms with a better sense of literacy. I believe both of these sponsors had pure intentions, but Mrs. Burdo’s execution was off. She should’ve marked up Criss’ paper more so she wasn’t left feeling like a “victim” (Williams). 

REVISED

Sponsors with good intentions can be perceived as negative if a student is highly sensitive. These well-meaning sponsors have the same stunting effect on literacy development as the self-centered sponsors Brandt describes. Since it’s difficult to grade English objectively, students may get oversensitive about their grades. This can be seen in Alexis Criss’ literacy narrative The Tale of how I Learned to Truly Dedicate Myself in School. In the narrative, Criss writes about getting a B+ on a paper that her friends all go As on, even though they all worked closely together. This greatly hurt Criss’s confidence and made her feel like she “didn’t know what she was doing” (Criss). The experience made Criss recoil from learning in that class, and she wouldn’t ask her teacher, Mrs. Burdo, about why she got the grade she got for fear of the teacher disliking her “any more than I thought she already did by complaining about a grade.” Williams would categorize Criss’ narrative as a victim narrative, like Scaglione. When reading this narrative, I couldn’t help but think that Mrs. Burdo was just doing her job. She most likely saw places that could be improved upon, and graded the assignment in a way she felt would push her student to do better next time. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Burdo is not unlike Skylah Buchanan’s first-grade sponsor that lead to her still reading “good happy, silly, fun books” today. Mrs. Simmons, her teacher, was considered a positive sponsor for challenging Buchanan to read harder books. Mrs. Burdo and Mrs. Simmons were both trying to challenge their students so they would leave their respective classrooms with a better sense of literacy. I believe both of these sponsors had pure intentions, but Mrs. Burdo’s execution was off. She should’ve marked up Criss’ paper more so she wasn’t left feeling like a “victim” (Williams). When placed next to each other, these narratives show that when it comes to literacy sponsorship, executing teaching well is oftentimes what makes a sponsor leave a negative impact, not said sponsor’s motives.