Cooling identifies two starting-points from which to approach the question of the place of religion in education. He calls them "the Argument from Fairness" and "the Argument from Objectivity". He attributes both of them to humanists and to me personally. He says that he accepts the Argument from Fairness, but rejects the Argument from Objectivity, which he takes to be at the heart of more particular disagreements between humanists and religious believers. I point out that his attribution of the Argument from Objectivity to me and to others rests on a misunderstanding. I suggest that the Argument from Fairness is in fact a shared starting-point from which humanists and religious believers can debate the contentious practical issues, but it needs to be detached from his contestable claims about the inescapability of worldviews and the impossibility of neutrality. I find a good deal to agree with in what he says about the importance in education of deeper reflection on beliefs and values. I suggest, however, that his positions on collective worship and on religious schools cannot be reconciled with the Argument from Fairness. (Contains 5 notes.)