The purpose of this research is to examine how South Korea (hereafter, Korea) organizes, manages, and practices a new approach to interventions for students with underachievement as they transition away from the accountability system.

Interventions have become increasingly significant around the world in the era of globalization (Burch et al., 2007; Higgins, 2014). Interventions commonly aim to achieve twofold: (a) to improve student achievement and (b) to provide compensatory educational services to close the achievement gap among students of diverse backgrounds (Coleman et al., 1966). That is, interventions endeavor to prevent and reverse academic deficiency of those who have limited educational opportunities due to low socio-economic status, minority backgrounds, and/or single-parent households (OECD, 2012). With this regard, many countries have practiced interventions; for example, the United States (US) implemented Response to Intervention (RtI), an evidence-based multitiered approach to remediate students with academic difficulties (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009; Hughes & Dexter, 2011). England employed Every Child Programs as early academic prevention services for students with disadvantaged backgrounds (Every Child Matters, 2003).

Korea also has provided interventions for students with underachievement who mostly come from marginalized background since the mid-1990s (Oh et al., 2012; Oh et al., 2014; Yi et al., 2009). Affected by neoliberalism that has dominated educational policies in many countries, interventions in Korea have mostly focused on enhancing academic skills of underachiever, using standardized tests as a lever. However, interventions have recently taken a new approach under the new administration in 2013. This includes 1) transition away from the accountability system through elimination the national achievement test (NAEA: National Assessment for Education Achievement) in elementary schools, 2) discontinuation of the government-funded interventions strictly associated with NAEA results, and 3) implementation of a new intervention called Do-Dream School for students with underachievement in 2014 (Kim, 2014; Yi, 2014). In fact, Do-Dream School, as the name implies, attempts to holistically support students through various services besides academics for the first time in Korea. This involves multidisciplinary teams, counseling services, and diagnosis-correction systems not only to engage schools in innovative reforms but also to enhance students' cultural capital, motivation, self-esteem, and social skills. As of January, 2015, more than a thousand public schools participate in Do-Dream Schools across the nation in Korea.

Despite the importance of interventions, there has been sparse research about Korea's approach to interventions for underachievement in the international context in part due to Korea's reputable scores in international exams (Loveless, 2013; OECD, 2014). Although a volume of research has delved Korea's academic success, relatively little attention has attended to interventions nor underachievement in Korea. In addition, almost no research in Korea has closely examined Do-Dream School as it is a new intervention in Korea as well. Based on these reasons, this research qualitatively investigates Do-Dream School to add to the current research field and to provide insights to other countries that practice interventions. This research finds significance in that Do-Dream School supports underachievement from social, affective/emotional, and cognitive ways beyond academies, while interventions commonly treat academics for higher educational attainment (Higgins, 2014). In addition, as Do-Dream School is closely associated with Korea's transition away from the accountability system, this research can also demonstrate the use of decentralized strategy to interventions at the school level. Research questions include: 1) How is the Do-Dream School policy perceived and implemented in practice? 2) Is it producing intended results in practice? If not, why not? 3) What global implications can be drawn from the Korean case with regard to interventions for underachievers?

Burch, P. Steinberg, M., Donovan, J. (2007). Supplemental Educational Services and NCLB: Policy Assumptions, Market Practices, Emerging Issues. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 115-133. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPortland, J., et al., 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity, US Department of Education. Washington, DC: USGPO. Department for Education and Skills (2003). Every Child Matters. Green Paper, London: The Stationery Office. Fletcher, J.M., Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to Intervention: Preventing and Remediating Academic Difficulties. Child Development Perspective, 3(1), 30-37. Higgins, O. (2014). One Urban School's Implementation of a Systemic Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Framework. Doctoral Dissertation. Lynch School of Education, MA: USA Hughes, C.A., Dexter, D.D. (2011). Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 4-11. Kim, D. (2014). 2014 Accountability Policy: Introduction of the Preliminary Plan. Ministry of Education & KICE: Seoul. Loveless, T. (2013). The Latest TIMSS and PIRLS Scores. Part I of the 2013 Brown Center Report on American Education. Retrieved on September 2, 2014 from http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/03/18-timss-pirls-scores-loveless. Merriam, S.H. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. Retrieved on December, 3, 2014 from http://asiasociety.org/files/oced-0512report.pdf. OECD (2014). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 Result in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. OECD. Retrieved on September 2, 2014 from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf. Oh, S., Yi, H., Chang, K.S. (2012). Seeking for the Better Instruction for Low Achievers in Schools through the School-Community Cooperation. KICE: Seoul. Oh, S., Yi, H., Chang, K.S., Ku, Y., Oh, E., Lee, J., Lee, D., Kim. E. (2014). Integrative Support System for Underachievers. KICE: Seoul. Yi, H. (2014). Introduction of “Do-dream” School. Ministry of Education & KICE: Seoul. Yi, H., Kim, M., Lee, D., Son, S. (2009). Seeking for the better instruction and support for low achievers in schools: A Framework for educational policy-making for low achievers. KICE: Seoul.