Alaska law only provides one authorizing option for charter applications.  First, the local school board must approve it.  Second, the state board of education must approve it.  There is almost no authorizing activity in the state.

Arizona law allows charter applicants to apply to local school boards (for schools only within their geographic boundaries), the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (ASBCS), or the state board of education. However, the state board of education has a self-imposed moratorium on charter authorizing, so ASBCS currently oversees all schools approved by both state boards. In addition, only a few local school boards are authorizing schools. 

In addition, a university, community college district, or group of community college districts may each approve no more than four applications for fiscal year 2013.  To date, one university has authorized one charter holder that operates four sites.

Arkansas law requires conversion charter schools to be approved by the local school board and the state board of education. It requires new start-up charter schools (or open enrollment charter schools) to be approved by the local school board and the state board of education or by the state board of education only if an applicant appeals a local school board's denial to the state board of education.

California law allows local school boards, county boards of education, and the state board of education to authorize charter schools. A local board may approve charter schools that will operate within the geographic boundaries of the school district.A county board of education may approve a charter that: a) will serve pupils for whom the county office of education would otherwise be responsible for providing direct education and related services; or b) will operate at one or more sites within the county's geographic boundaries (as a countywide charter) and provide instructional services not generally provided by the county office of education. In addition, the county board must find that the charter will serve pupils who will benefit from those services and who cannot be served by a charter school that operates in only one school district in the county.

The state board of education may approve a charter school that will operate in multiple sites throughout the state if the charter will provide instructional services of statewide benefit.

A charter applicant denied by a local school board may appeal first to the county board of education, and then to the state board of education.

Colorado law allows all local school boards to authorize charter schools, provided that a majority of students (other than online students) at a charter school authorized by a district reside in that district or in contiguous school districts.In addition, Colorado law has established an independent Charter School Institute with statewide chartering authority except in districts granted "exclusive chartering authority" by the state board of education. Exclusive chartering authority is a privilege, which the state board can remove for authorizers not meeting expectations. Colorado law automatically provides exclusive chartering authority to districts enrolling fewer than 3,000 pupils. It requires other local school boards to apply to the state board for exclusive chartering authority within the geographic boundaries of their district. It also provides that each local school board that was granted exclusive chartering authority by April 17, 2008 retains that authority until the local school board voluntarily relinquishes it or the state board revokes it pursuant to Colorado law.

Connecticut law provides only one viable authorizer available for each type of charter school:  the state board of education for state charters, and the local school board and the state board of education for local charters.  There is almost no authorizing activity in the state.

Delaware law requires applicants for public school conversions to apply to local school boards and applicants for new start-ups to apply to either local school boards or the state department of education (with assent from the state secretary of education and the state board of education).

The law established two authorizers, the DC Board of Education and the DC Public Charter School Board (DCPCSB). However, the DC Board of Education is now defunct, and in 2007 the DCPCSB assumed oversight of all the charter schools formerly overseen by the DC Board of Education. The law also permits the DC Council to designate another entity as an authorizer, which has not occurred.

Florida law allows local school boards, state universities (for lab schools only), and community college district boards of trustees (for charter technical career centers only) to serve as authorizers.  While the state only has essentially a single viable authorizer option available, there is considerable authorizing activity.

The law provides an appeals process in which a rejected applicant can appeal to a charter school appeal commission, which makes a recommendation to the state board of education.  The law provides that the state board of education can vote to require an authorizer to accept an application. The law requires any appeals involving proposals to replicate a high performing charter school be made directly to the state board of education, and the sponsor must provide “clear and convincing evidence” that the application does not meet the requirements specified in law, thereby placing a larger burden of evidence on the authorizer as to why they did not accept the proposal.

Georgia law allows local school boards and, following the passage of a constitutional amendment in 2012, a state charter school commission to serve as authorizers. It requires those seeking a state charter school with a state-wide attendance area to apply directly to the commission and to provide a copy of their application as information only to the local board in which the school will be located. For those seeking a state charter school with a defined attendance area, the law requires the application to be submitted concurrently to the local board(s) impacted by the proposal and the commission.  The law provides that the commission cannot consider the application until it is denied at the local level or no action is taken on it at the local level within 60 days of submission. The law requires the state board of education to review and may overrule the approval or renewal of a state charter school by the state charter school commission within 60 days of such decision. 

Georgia law also allows applicants to appeal denials by local school boards to the state board of education, who serves as the authorizer if it overturns the local school board’s denial. Such schools are called “state-chartered special schools.”

Hawaii law creates a State Public Charter School Commission that has statewide authorizing authority.  In addition, the law allows a number of entities (i.e., accredited public and private postsecondary institutions, county and state agencies, and nonprofits) to apply to the State Board of Education to become an authorizer.  Such additional authorizers, however, cannot be approved sooner than July 1, 2014.

Idaho law allows local school boards and a state charter school commission to authorize charter schools. It requires vrtual charter school applications to be submitted to the state commission. It also requires that applications for non-virtual charter schools must first be submitted to the local school board. Therefore, aside from virtual charter proposals, the law only allows the state commission to approve charter applications that local school boards have referred, not acted on, or denied. The law also allows the state board of education to authorize schools upon appeal if denied by the state commission.

Illinois law allows local school boards to serve as authorizers.  If an applicant is denied at the local level, it may apply to the State Charter School Commission.  In addition, a charter school authorized by a local school board may apply to the State Charter School Commission at the time of charter contract renewal.  

The law also requires a local school board, whenever petitioned to do so by 5% or more of the voters of a school district or districts identified in a charter school proposal, to submit to the voters at a regularly scheduled election the question of whether a new charter school shall be established. The law provides that if the majority of voters approve the referendum, the State Charter School Commission must enter into a contract with the charter school.

Indiana law allows local school boards, public four-year universities or their designated representative, the Mayor of Indianapolis, a state charter board, and a nonprofit college or university that provides a four-year educational program for which it awards a baccalaureate or more advanced degree to authorize charters.

Iowa law requires charter applicants to first be approved by the local school board and then by the state board of education. Those denied at the local level may appeal to the state board which can overturn the local school board's decision. There are currently eight conversion charter schools operating in the state.

Kansas law only provides one authorizing option for charter applications.  First, the local school board must approve it.  Second, the state board of education must approve it.  There is almost no authorizing activity in the state.

Louisiana law allows three types of authorizers: local school boards, the state board of education, and local charter authorizers. The law provides that local charter authorizers can be a state agency (including public postsecondary institutions) or a nonprofit that has an educational mission and meets minimum asset and length of time requirements, and must apply to the state board of education to become an authorizer.  The law states that not more than five local charter authorizers can be approved to operate in any regional labor market area (although each local charter authorizer must affirm their capacity and interest in overseeing at least five schools).

Maine law provides that any local school board (or a collaborative of local school boards) may become an authorizer by issuing a request for proposals.  In addition, the law allows charter school applicants to apply directly to the State Charter Schools Commission.  The law provides that only the Commission can approve virtual schools.

Maryland law provides local school boards as the only authorizer option for most applicants. Under limited circumstances, the state board of education may authorize the restructuring of a non-charter public school as a charter school.

Massachusetts provides only a single viable authorizer option in the state board of education, but there is considerable authorizing activity in the state.

Michigan law allows local school boards, intermediate school boards, community colleges, and state public universities to serve as authorizers, all subject to state board of education review for compliance with law.

Minnesota law allows the following types of entities to serve as authorizers: local school boards, intermediate school boards, cooperatives, charitable nonprofit organizations that meet certain criteria, private colleges, public postsecondary institutions, and single-purpose sponsors that are charitable, non-sectarian entities created just to charter schools. It also provides that all entities are subject to approval by the state commissioner of education before they can authorize.

Mississippi law provides that the state board of education is the only authorizer, and there is no authorizing activity.

Missouri law allows the following types of entities to serve as authorizers in the Kansas City school district, the St. Louis school district, and unaccredited districts: the Kansas City and St. Louis school boards; a special administrative board created by the state board of education to operate the Kansas City or St. Louis school districts; a community college, the service area of which encompasses some portion of the district; a public four-year college or university with an approved teacher education program that meets regional or national standards of accreditation; any private four-year college or university with an enrollment of at least one thousand students, with its primary campus in Missouri, and with an approved teacher preparation program; any two-year private vocational or technical school designated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which is a member of the North Central Association and accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, with its primary campus in Missouri; or the Missouri Charter Public School Commission.

In provisionally accredited school districts that have received scores on their annual performance reports consistent with a classification of provisionally accredited or unaccredited for three consecutive school years beginning with the 2012-2013 accreditation year, Missouri law allows local school boards and authorizers that have met the standards of accountability and performance as determined by the state department of education to authorize charters.

In accredited school districts, Missouri law only local school boards to authorize charters.  

Missouri law requires that when an authorizer approves an application, it must forward it to the state board of education for its approval along with an assurance that it meets legal requirements and provides a monitoring plan for the school.  The law allows the state board to find the application insufficient and decline to approve it.

If an authorizer turns down application, the law allows the applicant to submit it to the state board, which can approve and then act as the authorizer.

Nevada law allows applicants to seek approval from a local school board (if previously approved to be an authorizer by the state board of education), a State Public Charter School Authority, or a college or university within the Nevada System of Higher Education. In advance of such submission, applicants may submit their application for review and approval by the state department of education for completeness and compliance with applicable state law and regulation. There is some authorizing activity by local school districts and the State Public Charter School Authority.

In one route, New Hampshire law provides that the local school board and the state board approve the application. It also allows applicants denied by the local school board to appeal to the state board.  

In a second route, New Hampshire law allows applicants to apply directly to the state board of education. 

For any public school conversations, New Hampshire law provides that approval can occur by vote of the local school board following an affirmative vote by a majority of teachers in the district or 2/3rd of teachers in a single school district, as well as the principal and district superintendent. In addition, the state board must approve such applications and grant the charters.

The New Hampshire State Board of Education adopted a moratorium on state-authorized public charter schools in September 2012.  While the moratorium doesn’t apply to local school board-authorized public charter schools, it still essentially stops growth in the state as no local school boards are currently authorizers of charters.

New Jersey law only allows the state commissioner of education to authorize charter schools.

New Mexico law allows local school districts and the state public education commission to approve charter applications.

Under New York law, applicants can apply directly to a district board of education, SUNY, or the State Board of Regents, although only the State Board of Regents can officially issue a charter.  By law, if SUNY approves an application (and reasserts approval if the State Board of Regents rejects it, then the State Board of Regents must issue the charter for that school.  The law requires districts to approve conversions of schools from district schools to charter schools, with final approval given to the State Board of Regents.

North Carolina law allows local school boards, the University of North Carolina, and the state board of education to serve as authorizers.  Charter schools approved by local school boards and the University of North Carolina must also be approved by the state board of education.  There is some authorizing activity by the state board of education.

Ohio law provides numerous charter authorizers including: (1) the board of education of the district in which the school is proposed to be located; (2) the board of education of any joint vocational school district with territory in the county in which is located the majority of the territory of the district in which the school is proposed to be located; (3) the board of education of any other city, local, or exempted village school district having territory in the same county where the district in which the school is proposed to be located has the major portion of its territory; (4) the governing board of any educational service center, as long as the proposed school will be located in a county within the territory of the service center or in a county contiguous to such county; (5) a sponsoring authority designated by the board of trustees of any of the thirteen state universities or the board of trustees for the university itself if the proposed school will serve as the university’s teaching demonstration site as approved by the state board of education; (6) any qualified education non-profit that meets the standards as outlined in the charter law; and (7) the Ohio Department of Education.

Oklahoma law permits the following entities to serve as authorizers: local school districts; technology center school districts; a comprehensive or regional institution that is a member of the Oklahoma state system of higher education; a federally recognized Indian tribe (but only for schools located within its former reservation or treaty area boundaries and designed to demonstrate native language immersion instruction); and the state board of education when the applicant is the Office of Juvenile Affairs or has a contract with that Office or when the applicant is the statewide virtual charter school board and the charter school is for the purpose of establishing a full-time statewide virtual charter school.

Oregon law provides that local school boards are the only authorizers of first resort.  It allows applicants to appeal local school board denials to the state board of education or to designated higher education institutions.

Pennsylvania law provides the following potential authorizers: local schools boards, two or more local boards for regional charters, and the state department of education for virtual charter schools. It provides that applications denied by local school boards can be appealed to a state appeals board. If approved by the state appeals board, the law requires the chair of the state appeals board to sign the written charter if the local school board still refuses to grant the charter. According to the law, this appellate process does not apply for those applicants within districts governed by a school reform commission (i.e., Philadelphia).

Under Rhode Island law, the only authorizer is the state board of regents, and only after the charter school has been approved by a local school board or the state commissioner of elementary and secondary education.  There is some authorizing activity in the state.

Under South Carolina law, applicants can apply to their local school district, to the South Carolina Public Charter School District, or a public or independent institution of higher learning that registers with the South Carolina Department of Education. There is authorizing activity by local school districts and the South Carolina Public Charter School District.  Before applying via any route, the law requires applicants to get preliminary approval from a state charter school advisory committee, which assesses compliance with application requirements.

Tennessee law allows local school boards to authorize charter schools.  The law also allows the achievement school district to authorize charter schools within an LEA for the purpose of providing opportunities for students within the LEA who are zoned to attend or enrolled in a chronically low-performing school that is eligible to be placed in the achievement school district.  It also allows the state board of education to authorize charter school applications sponsored by local school boards.

Texas law allows applicants to apply to either local school boards or the state board of education. There is considerable authorizing activity by the state board of education.

Utah law permits local school boards, the state charter school board, and designated higher education institutions to authorize charter schools, subject to state board of education approval.  There is considerable authorizing activity by the state charter school board.

Virginia law only allows local school boards to serve as authorizers (either independently or together in the case of regional charter schools), and there is almost no authorizing activity in the state. Statute requires that all applications must first be reviewed by the state board of education to determine if the application meets approval criteria established by the state board, but only local school boards are subsequently allowed to approve applications.

Statute creates the Washington Charter School Commission, to which charter proposals for schools anywhere in the state can be directly submitted.  In addition, statute allows any local school board to seek approval to become an authorizer from the state board of education.

Outside of Milwaukee, the law only allows local school boards to serve as authorizers. In addition, it allows the University of Wisconsin-Parkside to sponsor one charter school in the Racine School District. In Milwaukee, the law allows the local school board, city of Milwaukee, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the Milwaukee Area Technical College to serve as authorizers.

Wyoming law allows only local school boards to authorize charter schools, and there is almost no authorizing activity.