Let me translate it in privileged language: when the poor are, like their name suggests, poor, they cannot afford the tutors and the time for pushing their capable kids through the good school. All while recognizing the shitiness of their situation.

So which argument are we actually discussing here? Because in the OPs post and in yours there are two different arguments that, for whatever reason, are bundled together and used as a motte and bailey.

Argument #1: Certain kids are privileged enough to be able to afford tutoring and get into good schools and this is unfair to the poor kids

Argument #2: Certain kids are being pushed UNNECESSARILY by their parents to participate in a rat race when their time would be better suited to doing something else