There are many theories in explaining the difference of educational performance. One of the classical classification has been named the "nature -nurture controversy.” On the nature-side, the children's academic performance is definitely determined by their genetic attributes, which have been usually measured by IQ test. According to IQ-ism, education cannot make significant difference in the performance. Educationists have tried to argue the importance of educational treatment in school achievement. The need to strengthen the determining power of nurture-side variables in school performance. The cultural deprivation theory has been made and extended in this context in the U.S. in early 1960s. Some years later this theory has been imported to Korea. I have recently done a theoretical research project to sociologically re-evalute the cultural deprivation theory. After this study, I have been interested in how the theory was imported and explained in Korea. Usually Korean scholars have accepted the foreign -made theories without depth -review and critical consideration. Consequently they arbitarily explain the original theory and apply the arbitarily modified theory to educational field. The cultural deprivation theory has been evaluated by Korean scholars as the liberal and humanistic theory which can empower to education. They expect the equality of educational performance which can cause social equality. When they introduced the theory to Korea they selected the pro-side articles in the U. S. and precisely described only the successful cases of compensatory education programs, e.g., Head Start Project. After being imported, the theory has never been re -evaluated until now. The psychologists of education have played the role of main importers and expenders. The great majority of the sociologists of education and the theorists of anthropology of education have also supported the theory. Without critical evaluation, the cultural deprivation theory has been accepted as the truth-like theory which is presumed to explain the social phenomena anytime and anyplace. The Korean supporters could not understand that the theory was intentionally made by the middle-class whites of American society in early 1960s. They could not recognize the social situation of the U.S. when the theory was made. They never questioned how the theory was made at that time in the U.S. Knowledge cannot be free from the ideological intention of the ruling class and/or race. The cultural deprivation theory has been criticized for fallacy and the ideological conspiracy since 1960s, when the theory was advanced in the U.S. However, in Korea, the theory has never been criticized and even depth-reviewed until now. Therefore, the theory has been taught and used as theoretical background in making compensatory educational policy. The educationists and policy-makers thought that the failure of academic achievement is due to children's and their family's problems. Therefore, in Korea the structural approach to explain the difference of academic performance among children has never been tried, The structural variables, such as sex and social class, and the interaction effect of teachers and students with varing social structural background have never been given any serious consideration in conducting research project which attempts to explain scholastic gap among students in Korea.