Exclusion Through Eligibility: How Administrative Disability Certification Limits Access to Special Education in South Korea

South Korea identifies only about 2.2% of K-12 students as eligible for special education, compared with approximately 15% of students receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States and approximately 27% of Australian students receiving educational adjustments for disability. Existing explanations have largely attributed this disparity to Korea’s narrow statutory disability categories. However, this paper argues that disability definitions alone cannot adequately explain Korea’s exceptionally low rate of special education eligibility. Instead, it examines how the relationship between disability registration and special-education eligibility may affect access to special education, even though the two are determined through distinct institutional processes. In Korea, registered disability status carries consequences across multiple policy domains, including eligibility for welfare benefits, employer compliance with the mandatory employment quota, and access to supernumerary university admission tracks. Using comparative institutional and legal analysis supported by official national statistics, this paper advances the administrative certification model as a new institutional framework that complements existing medical, social, and human rights models of disability. South Korea is examined as a critical case and compared with the United States, Germany, Finland, England, Japan, Canada, and Australia to examine how differences in certification arrangements relate to access to special education. Because national indicators differ in age range, identification criteria, and reporting conventions, the comparison is descriptive rather than a causal test. The analysis suggests that certification-centered eligibility may contribute to the educational exclusion of medically fragile, neurodivergent, and twice-exceptional students. This paper’s theoretical contribution is to identify administrative certification as an institutional mechanism that may shape educational access beyond statutory disability categories. Its practical contribution is to identify greater separation between educational eligibility and disability certification as a potential reform option and to propose an accommodation-based tier of support, informed by Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act, for students whose educational needs warrant support but who do not meet the certification threshold.