With reports alleging a sharp decline in student achievement in the last several years, there has been a call for higher standards in the United States education system. In response, with bipartisan support, politicians overwhelmingly passed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB, the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), mandated increasing the educational performance of all children by focusing on accountability for student achievement, flexibility, higher academic standards, research-based reforms, parental choice, annual testing to measure student progress, analysis of the annual testing data, and sanctions for schools where students did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) as defined by each state. One of the sanctions defined in the statute was the supplemental educational services (SES). Under SES, Title I schools that failed to make AYP for three or more years were required to pay for tutoring, remediation, or other academic interventions for low-income students. Supplemental services had to be held outside of the regular school day and could be provided by for-profit or nonprofit agencies. This was a historical inquiry study (Lancy, 1993) that utilized aspects of the case study (Yin, 1994). The study examined the events surrounding the enactment of the supplemental educational services element of the No Child Left Behind Act, including the players involved, their positions, factors shaping their perceptions, and the action-channels and rules of the game involved in the political action through the lens of Allison and Zelikow's (1999) governmental politics model (GPM). Additionally, the study examined the initial implementation stage of the law using Putney, Wink, and Perkins' (2006) critical action research matrix application (CARMA). Various primary and secondary sources were examined and key players from various aspects of the policy process were interviewed. From these data, themes were identified. Several issues for further study were also identified including additional evaluation of the implementation of the law with an analysis of litigation stemming from the legislation. Implications for policymakers and school leaders were also reported. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]