GL Assessment vs CEM-Style 11+ Exams: What's the Difference

GL Assessment is a well-established exam provider used by a large number of grammar schools and local authorities across England for their 11+ tests. Its papers are widely used and it publishes past papers and familiarisation material, which has made it, in practice, the more commonly encountered format in many selective areas.

CEM originally referred to the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University, which for a long time developed and produced 11+ tests used by a number of other local authorities and schools as an alternative to GL. Durham University wound down CEM's involvement in producing these tests, and other organisations have since taken over producing exams in a similar style, which is why you'll still see the term 'CEM-style' used to describe a distinct approach to 11+ testing even though the original Durham CEM entity is no longer the one producing every such paper.

The practical upshot for a family researching this is: the terminology has shifted over time, some areas have moved from one format to the other (or to their own bespoke test) over the years, and the only reliable way to know which format applies to you is to check directly with your local authority or target school, since general information like this can become outdated as providers and contracts change.

One of the clearest practical differences historically has been how the four subject areas, maths, English, verbal reasoning and non-verbal reasoning, are organised within the test. GL Assessment papers have typically been organised as more distinct, separate sections or papers per subject, with a fairly consistent, predictable internal structure and question numbering within each subject area, which many families find easier to practise for in a structured way, since past papers tend to look quite similar to each other.

CEM-style papers have historically been more likely to mix question types within a single paper, sometimes blending verbal reasoning, comprehension, maths and vocabulary questions together within the same section rather than cleanly separating them, and to vary the format and structure somewhat more from one year to the next. This made CEM-style papers feel less predictable to practise for using a fixed set of past papers, since the exact shape of the next test was harder to anticipate.

It's worth stressing that these are general historical tendencies rather than absolute rules that apply identically everywhere and every year, since individual local authorities and schools can specify variations, and formats have shifted over time as providers and contracts have changed. Always confirm the actual current structure with your local authority or school rather than assuming either description applies exactly.

Beyond structure, the two styles have also historically differed in emphasis. CEM-style tests have had a reputation for leaning more heavily on vocabulary and general verbal reasoning ability, sometimes including a wider, less predictable range of word types and comprehension demands, which made them somewhat harder to prepare for through pure technique or memorising question formats alone. The idea behind this design, as originally set out by Durham CEM, was partly to reduce the advantage that intensive, format-specific tutoring could give, by making the test rely more on a child's broader vocabulary, reading habits and general reasoning built up over years rather than recently drilled technique.

GL Assessment tests, by contrast, have generally been seen as more consistently format-based, meaning that familiarity with the specific question types (the particular kinds of verbal reasoning codes, non-verbal reasoning sequences, and so on) tends to translate more reliably into improved performance, since the underlying question formats repeat in recognisable ways across different years and papers.

In practice, this distinction has softened somewhat over recent years, as CEM-style tests have themselves become more standardised and as more preparation material has become available for both formats, meaning the old idea that CEM was entirely 'uncoachable' is less true than it once was. Still, the general tendency, format familiarity mattering more for GL-style tests, and broader vocabulary and reading depth mattering more for CEM-style tests, remains a reasonable practical guide.

The most important first step, before choosing any preparation materials or approach, is confirming which format your target area or school actually uses this year, since guessing wrong means practising the wrong kind of material. Your local authority's admissions pages or the individual school's admissions office are the right place to check, and it's worth reconfirming even if you found this information previously, since some areas have changed formats over time.

If your area uses a GL-style format, it's generally worth prioritising focused practice on the specific recurring question types across all four subjects, since pattern familiarity tends to pay off directly, working through past papers repeatedly to build speed and recognise question formats, and being comfortable moving between distinct subject sections and adjusting mentally between different question styles within a timed setting.

If your area uses a CEM-style format, it's generally worth placing more emphasis on broad, sustained reading across a wide range of fiction and non-fiction to build vocabulary and comprehension naturally over time, rather than relying purely on drilling a narrow set of practice questions, alongside general reasoning practice and comfort with mixed-format papers where question types can appear in less predictable combinations within the same section.

In both cases, timed practice under realistic exam conditions matters, and Skylark's adaptive practice and mock exams are built to flex to a child's specific target format once you've confirmed it, so the practice questions and mock papers reflect the actual structure they'll meet on the day, rather than a generic one-size-fits-all approach.