Yes, it's crazy to take away things like tutoring and such from those who can afford it. But it's equally crazy to pretend that those things aren't advantages to the students who get them.
Whenever the conversation about bad schools and bad neighborhoods comes up and the conversation turns to not giving poor kids any advantages based on economic position, people often forget add in the economic advantage the well-to-do kids have. When asked if we really want to even the playing field...no one wants to even the playing field by reducing advantages for the well off. That's ludicrous to me. When poor kids are given benefits - no advantages, equal playing field. When rich kids are given benefits - well, that's fine.
But rich kids didn't earn those advantages, their parents did. Those kids are not paying for their own tutors, they're not paying the taxes in their school districts. It's an advantage that arises from the luck of birth, not the sweat of their brow. And yet the idea of evening the unearned benefits for other kids is always pointed to as something unreasonable.
As for fixing disadvantaged schools, you're not giving them bonus points. You're addressing the effect of disadvantaged schools on regular, every day kids. Kids in bad schools shouldn't have that issue addressed until the school, that they have no control over, is transformed into a better school? That sounds like people want to punish the kids because the school isn't better.
You ever played a video game with someone when one of the buttons on your controller doesn't work? You're going to lose more games that you win but not because you're necessarily bad at the game or even because the other guy is better. If your controller is broken, you're at a disadvantage no matter how good you are. Acknowledging that doesn't end meritocracy, it credits it. It says "Those 2 people aren't competing with the same tools. So, is there a way to judge their skills even though one guy has a bad controller?" Pretending that they're the same undermines meritocracy by burying the differences that are not the fault of the competitors. It doesn't make the guy with a good controller a bad guy and, as we agree, you wouldn't break his controller to even it up but you can't in good faith suggest that the right response is to claim that the broken controller has no impact on the game and thus should be ignored.