Reed Elsevier blame a bit too much on the seasonal effect

In Reed Elsevier first half statement, management rightly point to some severe seasonal effects, related to the timing of educational publishing, medical books and trade shows. But these can hardly be blamed for:

• The tacit reduction of the Elsevier growth target, which moved form 'at least 5%' (at the February full-year statements) to just '5%'.
• The zero underlying growth (excluding currencies and acquisitions) of Harcourt. How come Pearson, Thomson and McGraw-Hill managed to grow their education businesses by 14%, 10% and 12% respectively?