Chromebooks seem like a much better choice for the classroom than iPads for many reasons, not the least of which is that you can get 3 for the price of the $768 they spent for each iPad. They also have a keyboard already, another money-saving measure. Almost as important: they are very easy to manage on a large scale. Apple has failed miserably in this area and Google could begin to really reap the benefits.
It depends on what they are using them for, I guess. Something I learned almost 25-years ago when I started my IT career (and it applies to most of life)**... saving money isn't much good if you didn't get the right thing or good quality. It actually ends up costing more in the long-run.
If they are just taking Web-based courses or exams, I suppose that's good enough. If they are also using real-world apps and such, it's better to have a real-world type device.
The big problem here though isn't the hardware they picked, but the program itself. It's like Common Core too. It's just a way for these companies to come in and get a bunch of money (i.e.: Pearson), maybe even with good intentions by the teachers and schools, but then it all falls apart after the sale because the implementation wasn't thought through or funded well enough. I've seen it happen bunches of times over the years.
** I saw this back in the early 90s when companies all tried to go from brand-name equipment to built systems. They 'saved' lots of money, only to cost a lot more. Or, currently, the company my wife works for issued Dell brick laptops to all the reps that travel... except that hardly anyone takes them with them because they are so cruddy and heavy. Instead, they take iPads or other devices with them and have found 'work-arounds' in their workflow (which their lousy IT department probably wouldn't be too thrilled about). Maybe they saved a few bucks? I don't know. But I do know they've killed productivity, morale, and their image in front of their clients. Yea... that's worth it!