Post 9

I admit it.  It was amazing to see Rafe Esquith at the helm of his classroom in Hobart Shakespeareans.  In terms of sponsorship, it is hard to deny the positive impact he is having on these children.  Because enough has been written about Esquith as a sponsor, I thought I might examine a few of the other literacy sponsors mentioned in the film.  Our class discussion regarding Brandt made it clear that sponsorship is rarely, if ever, in the hands of one individual.  Firstly, Esquith’s class seemed to have a tremendous amount of money pouring into it from philanthropists and wealthy former students.  It was amazing to see each student playing their own guitar!  Contrast this image with students in other classrooms learning from outdated textbooks.  As Esquith’s fame continues to grow, it is safe to say that more and more sponsors (and money) will be sent his direction.  Could you believe it when Ian McKellen came into their rehearsal?

As I watched Spellbound, I was reminded of Scribner’s “Literacy in Three Metaphors,” particularly “Literacy as Adaptation.”  To what purpose does spelling esoteric words play in literacy?  In my opinion, it is just further evidence of the pointlessness of traditional literacy measuring doctrines.  It has about as much value as speed reading tests.  That being said, however, I think that the etymological training these children are receiving will have a positive impact on their ability to read, write, and communicate in the future.

As was the case with Hobart Shakespeareans, Spellbound  often seemed saturated with the idea of sponsorship.  Just think of the contrast between Neil and his private tutors versus Ted being forced to grow in a school who alienated him to the point of potentially contributing to his suicide.