Glossary

In the GDR, several didactic guidelines that affected the design of schooling were referred to as basic didactic principles (didaktische Grundprinzipien) or basic principles of teaching. To this day, strong references to some of these principles in educational science and education policy are to be found in discourses about the GDR.

Didactic principles were defined by the Ministry of Education in the "Regulation on the Lesson as the Basic Form of Schoolwork, the Preparation, Organisation, and Conduct of the Lesson, and the Monitoring and Assessment of Pupils' Knowledge” of 1950 (Verordnung über die Unterrichtsstunde als Grundform der Schularbeit, die Vorbereitung, Organisation und Durchführung der Unterrichtsstunde und die Kontrolle und Beurteilung der Kenntnisse der Schüler, 1950), during a sovietisation phase that lasted until June 1953. The regulation was modelled on a Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Zentralkommittee der Kommunistischen Partei der Sovietunion, CPSU) resolution from 1932 on the curricula and school regulations for primary and secondary schools. It was modelled on Stalinist-style school teaching (cf. Anweiler & Meyer, 1961, pp. 33-37) as well as comparatively conservative ideas from German schooling tradition. The principles were mostly dimensioned towards synthesis. For example, the principle of the systematic nature of teaching made it mandatory to align lesson content with current findings in the respective academic disciplines, while at the same time assigning a political function and dimension to their scientific basis namely "the connection of the scientific nature of teaching with the education of pupils to become progressive democrats (...) in the fight for peace (...), the unity of Germany (...), the transformation of social and economic conditions". This message was primarily directed against all didactic and methodological approaches that were close to so-called bourgeois school reformers (ibid., Ministry of Education, Ministerium für Volksbildung, MfV, 1950, II) and were described as reactionary and imperialist. In addition to increased structuring and standardisation in the design of lessons, the regulation also required comprehensibility, as well as a use of teaching methods and references that could be varied according to the respective needs of pupils.

The Regulations for Schooling of 1959 (MfV, 1959) and legal provisions for the people’s education system (Volksbildungswesen) contained rather fragmented elements but these principles continued to characterise the theory and, to a large extent, practice in schools. In 1987, for example, the pedagogical dictionary of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (Akademie der Pädagogischen Wissenschaften, APW) defined the unity of scientific rigour (Wissenschaftlichkeit) and partisanship (Parteilichkeit), the combination of theory and practice, the principle of individual consideration of the personality of the pupil on the basis of work with the pupil collective, and the principle of the leading role of the teacher and the independence of pupils as categories derived from the goals and principles of teaching (Laabs et al., 1987, pp. 84-85). The principles, often limited to the leading role of the teacher, developed into central terms in teacher training and didactics. Like the other principles, it was related to both professional and socio-political requirements. During the years of the GDR, it was a defining feature of schooling and schools in general.

In the GDR, the term bourgeois pedagogy was used to describe the theory and research that had emerged from 18th century philosophical influence and developed into an independent field of education studies. Guided by a Marxist-Leninist approach to their bourgeois heritage, the GDR initially made a fundamental distinction between a progressive or classical bourgeois pedagogy and a late bourgeois or imperialist pedagogy that was though to have emerged since the end of the 19th century. The so-called classical bourgeois pedagogy was received as a progressive tradition and was positively evaluated. In the GDR, there was intense interest in the pedagogy of Wolfgang Ratke (1571–1635) and Jan Amos Komensky (1592–1670), but also in that of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827), Friedrich Wilhelm August Fröbel (1782–1852) and Friedrich Adolph Wilhelm Diesterweg (1790–1866). This interest resulted in numerous journal articles, monographs, and editions. What was known as imperialist or late bourgeois pedagogy - which also included reform pedagogy (Reformpädagogik) - was viewed extremely critically; it was seen as the subject of political and ideological disputes between the revolutionary workers movement and bourgeois-reactionary movements on the side of the class enemy (Klassenfeind). In the context of 1980’s historical discussion about heritage and tradition, the representation of non-Marxist pedagogy increasingly became a topic of discussion. However, there was no radical revision of previous assessments, even though reform pedagogical trends were now assessed in a more nuanced way.

Civics (Staatsbürgerkunde) was a school subject in the GDR. It was introduced in 1957 and replaced the subject of contemporary studies (Gegenwartskunde), which had been taught until 1950. Curricula included the teaching of Marxist-Leninist ideology, political economy, scientific socialism, the structure of the state and the rights and duties of GDR citizens. The subject was initially taught in grades 9 to 12, and from 1969 onwards from grade 7 of the polytechnical secondary school (Polytechnische Oberschule, POS), each with one hour per week (Grammes, 2006, pp. 51-69).

Civics was considered an important means of political education in the GDR’s education system. The subject focused on developing class consciousness and commitment to the workers’ and farmers’ state (Arbeiter- und Bauernstaat) of the GDR. The lessons were closely linked to the children's and youth organisations integrated into the schools (the Young Pioneers, Junge Pioniere and Free German Youth, Freie Deutsche Jugend, FDJ).

The Cold War is not used to describe a war in the classic sense, but rather a tense world situation that had a decisive impact on world history, initially between 1945 and 1991. At its core were two opposing military alliances that utilised different social systems: on the one hand, the Western community of states (westliche Staatengemeinschaft) under the leadership of the United States, which came together in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949; on the other hand, the socialist community of states (sozialistische Staatengemeinschaft), which was constituted in 1955 as the Warsaw Treaty States in response to the founding of NATO. Both military alliances were open rivals on the world stage. Initial tensions had already arisen during the blockade of the western part of Berlin by the Soviet Union in 1948/49. Although the war was initially understood to be cold in the sense that the weapons of NATO and the Warsaw Pact (Warschauer Pakt) did not directly heat up, i. e. military power was not used directly, this rivalry determined a whole series of so-called proxy wars, such as the Korean War (1950/53) and the Vietnam War (1955/75). The founding of the GDR in October 1949 was characterised by emerging tensions between these still-forming communities of states and took place in clear distinction from the military alliances of West-Germany. A dividing line - also known as the iron curtain - ran through Europe between Western-allied and socialist states. This dividing line was legally defined by West Germany as the inner-German border in state-divided Germany, then materialised physically from 1961 in the form of militarily secured barriers known as the Wall (Mauer), which the GDR erected along its western state border (Staatsgrenze West). Systemic competition between the communities of states and social systems also characterised domestic GDR politics.

The collective was considered a typical social form of life, a social organism (Laabs et al., 1987, p. 202f.) within socialism. During the changing trends (Tendenzwende) in 1948/49, the concept of the collective replaced the concept of community, which had been common in educational discourse up to that point. The semantic replacement apparently did not require a factual, conceptual discussion. The terms therefore differed only marginally: while community described a social quality of the social association of people (Klaus & Buhr, 1976, p. 449f.), the term collective was not defined, but the collective concept was, which described an ordered totality of objects or individuals (ibid., p. 639f.). Against the background of Marxist-Leninist interpretations of society, the human personality was seen neither as a fatalistic product of the community, nor as a means of higher-level social wholes, but as a subject of social relations, a bearer of social functions in a very specific socio-economic structure of society (Neuner, 1975, p. 37). This concept of socialist collectivism was seen as an essential feature of social relations (ibid.) and was thus semantically almost identical to the above-mentioned concept of community, only specified in socialist terms. The propagation and appropriation of soviet pedagogy contributed significantly to establishing the concept of the collective in pedagogical jargon and reducing the concept of community to the like of the term group (Laabs et al., 1987, pp. 145, 162).

Ideally, members of the socialist collective were seen as representatives of the collective and were to act accordingly. The development of individuals into personalities was considered an inseparable part of perfecting the collective. Dawning reception of Makarenko's writings in the Soviet Union a decade after his death and the publication of his works in German translation transformed them into classics of socialist collective pedagogy in the GDR, and the pedagogical experiences propagated in them became instructive and exemplary for the practice of socialist education, primarily in children’s homes and shelters. Nevertheless, educational and historical study of Makarenko remained marginal. The idea of interpreting Makarenko's understanding of education as a variant of reform pedagogy (Reformpädagogik) was only started being considered shortly before the fall of the Wall.

Collective biography is the product of a scientific method in the social sciences and history, that focuses on reconstructing the history of a collective. Even though this method of reconstruction draws on the concept of biography that relates predominantly to individuals, it is more strongly based on the embedding of the individual in the shared experiences of a collective. In doing so, it responds to the criticism often levelled at biographical research that claims it promotes a heroisation of the individual. The approach of reconstructing collective biographies has been pursued in England since the 1970s and was further developed in German-speaking countries in the 1980s. While prosopography, which is an established research method in ancient and medieval studies, focuses on the systematic reconstruction of a group of people defined by shared space or time or a shared function and compiles corresponding lists of people, the method of collective biography develops the concept of the collective on the basis of relevant common characteristics and attempts to work out comparative as well as interactive aspects of individual biographies of a group. Collective biographical research thus contextualises to a greater extent and requires a broader range and density of data than prosopography.

Until the early 1970s, communist education referred to a transition to communism that would go beyond the developed socialist society of the GDR. Communism was characterised as a system with truly human conditions of existence, as the result of a leap of humanity from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom (Engels 1962, p. 264), which would lead to a materially affluent society in which fully (Marx 1962, p. 508) developed individuals could shape their lives according to their own abilities and needs. In the previous stage of development – the socialism that was to be built up to a later actualised socialism – there was initially no need for communist education, but rather a socialist or Marxist-Leninist pedagogy. In view of the pioneering role that the Soviet Union (USSR) was given in human history and regardless of the prevailing social reality and the development of institutionalised education, communist education was initially considered a privilege of the USSR. In 1972, however, Margot Honecker, reigning Minister of Education caused irritation when, by virtue of her office, she unceremoniously declared communist education to be the main task for the coming years. What was referred to as communist education in the GDR had previously been unclear. For Margot Honecker, it was mainly education in communist morality. Against the background of the administrative mandate to decipher the essence of communist education, lively research in education studies developed. However, it remained inconclusive and culminated in a largely domestic conflict between increasingly self-confident researchers in education studies and higher-level public education administration officials.

During the Cold War, the two German states competed in many areas of society over which system - socialism or capitalism - was technologically, economically and politically the more successful, peaceful, and fairer social model. This competition ran through many issues but was particularly evident in family policy (Frevert, 2000) and within the education system. This led, for example, to contradictions on fundamental questions for education policy: while there had been a ban on overwhelming people (Überwältigungsverbot) in the Federal Republic of Germany since the Beutelsbach consensus (Beutelsbacher Konsens, 1976), the practice in the GDR was also described by researchers as a kind of required overwhelming (Überwältigungsgebot, see Mathes, 2022, p. 130). Content was conveyed in a highly emotionalised way in order to govern and exercise political control.

The way the competing education systems dealt with National Socialism also played an important role. The GDR accused the FRG of not having separated itself from the National Socialist personnel among its teaching staff, while the GDR itself had created a renewed teaching staff (Neulehrer) of young people who were considered untainted by National Socialism. In addition, unlike the FRG, socialism in the GDR claimed to offer its school pupils the equal educational opportunities regardless of social background and gender (Baader/Koch/Neumann, 2023). The SED's education policy and in particular the Ministry of Education (Ministerium für Volksbildung) lead by Margot Honecker promised the population of the GDR that only under socialism could children and young people grow up to be happy people.

In 1978, however, the introduction of military education in schools led to resentment among citizens and damaged the image of the GDR as a 'peace state' (Friedensstaat, see Sachse, 2022). In particular the injustices of the education system, such as a lack of opportunities for development and advancement as well as blocked educational paths, led to strong criticism, which was expressed in the Peaceful Revolution of 1989 (Friedliche Revolution) and thereby contributed to the decline of the GDR. In addition, the fact that the GDR's education system had not been able to get young people to identify with the socialist system since the early 1980s also played an important role (see Wierling, 2000).

The 1965 Law on the Unified Socialist Education System (Gesetz über das einheitliche sozialistische Bildungssystem) states the education and upbringing of comprehensively and harmoniously developed socialist personalities as the overarching goal of the GDR's socialist education system (Section 1, 1). The socialist personality (Sozialistische Persönlichkeit) was to be characterized by loyalty to the SED, a love of the GDR homeland, work, and a willingness to engage in class struggle. The formation of socialist personalities was described as one of the "noblest ideals of socialism" (Laabs et al., 1987, p. 19). Despite these clear political implications, there is also something vague about the formula. This applies, for example, to the requirement of all-roundness and of harmonious development, which also drew on Humboldt's educational ideal from the 19th century. However, it was precisely this vagueness that enabled forms of state control and specific interpretation in the persecution of people who supposedly did not correspond to the ideal of the socialist personality. Thus, the education of a socialist personality was a central component of the construction of socialism and its education and training system, as well as the creation of the new man (Droit, 2014). Texts on education, for example, spoke of the education of a "new generation" with reference to Friedrich Engels (Brückner, 1976, p. 216), or of "education for new relations and conduct" (Neubert, 1975, p. 102), liberated from the "dross of the exploitative society" (ibid., p. 30). In addition to school education and upbringing, the extracurricular areas of GDR children's and youth organizations, i. e. the Ernst Thälmann pioneer organisation and the Free German Youth (Freie Deutsche Jugend, FDJ), were also integrated into the education system. They shared the goal of educating a socialist personality. This also affected the entire spectrum of educational media that was intended to contribute to the education of socialist personalities (Baader/Koch/Neumann 2025 i.E.).

In schools, this objective elicited an orientation towards the official state doctrine of Marxism-Leninism. Even if teachers had a certain amount of leeway with implementation and treatment of individual subjects, deviant behaviour often led to repressive treatment of students. Disciplinary measures such as placement in residential institutions or expulsion from school could also be the consequence. The effectiveness of education for the socialist personality in the sense of the SED was examined by scholars, while the Ministry of Education (Ministerium für Volksbildung) monitored schools and teaching in this regard, and the expected success was monitored by the Ministry for State Security (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit). From the SED's point of view, the development of well-rounded socialist personalities remained deficient until the end of the GDR despite all efforts, because the implementation of the theoretical and ideological guidelines in social and educational practice was problematic and would remain unfulfilled until the coming of the Peaceful Revolution (Friedliche Revolution).

In the GDR, connectedness to life (Lebensverbundenheit) described a general didactic principle (Didaktisches Prinzip) that played an increasingly important role in the planning of curricula and methodological guidelines, especially during the 1970s. In the pedagogical dictionary (Pädagogisches Wörterbuch) published by the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (Akademie der Pädagogischen Wissenschaften, APW) of the GDR, the term was defined as the relationship of an education system, an educational or teaching process to social life (APW, 1987b, p. 223). The use of the term refers, on the one hand, to problem surveys that sought to address the difficulties of an ineffective, scientistic orientation to teaching practice. On the other hand, it was important to secure knowledge and make it applicable in the face of a tense economic situation and the worsening shortage of skilled workers.

The requirement of a connectedness to life primarily placed demands on teachers to teach certain skills and attitudes in their lessons, as they were to prepare those being educated for the requirements of social practice (APW, 1987b, p. 223). General intellectual skills, flexibility and a deeper understanding of school lesson content should be developed, and independent problem-solving skills should be promoted to a greater extent to contribute to generally leading life (Lebenspraxis) successfully.

According to objectives of Marxist-Leninist theory, this specifically referred to the socialist life (Drefenstedt, Drews, Jandt, 1976, p. 126): the socio-politically connotated life practice as it was supposed to be or appear in propagated socialism (APW 1987a, 305). This did not necessarily refer to the - possibly problematic - lifeworld of young people and pupils and was therefore not to be understood as being congruent with a close connection to everyday life due to these implications. The connection of teaching to the needs of an economic system under the concept of polytechnics, the focus on children and youth organisations as a place for leisure activities and the comprehensive claim of socio-political education in the classroom becomes clear here (APW, 1987b p. 223). Connectedness to life is thus linked to the scientific nature of teaching and partisanship.

When adults are employed and at the same time bear the main responsibility for raising and caring for children as well as looking after the household, this can be described as a double burden. As women have been significantly more affected by this constellation historically, currently and systemically, the term double burden arose in the context of political, sociological and historical debates about women's employment. The term was only spoken of when the requirements (e.g. time structures) of domestic, demand-oriented and outside-the-home, paid work began to diverge with the implementation of industrial capitalist production conditions (Ostner, 1983, p. 57). While the term was historically used in regard to consequences for husbands, after 1945 the burden on women from various forms of work, paid work and housework, increasingly came into focus (ibid.). As a result, so-called time budget studies in the former Federal Republic of Germany (Ex-BRD) regularly examined how much time working women and men spent on raising children, caring for them and doing housework. The trend that emerged has remained the same for decades: women's employment rates do not align with men's time spent raising children and doing housework.

In the GDR, both labour and family policy were aimed at working women. At the same time, employment was also the benchmark for women's equality, as enshrined in the GDR's State Treaty. However, it was also the case in the GDR that child-rearing and housework were, to a certain extent, the primary responsibility of women. In sociological terms, this meant that a doubly gendered socialisation, i.e. taking place within the production sector and private reproduction sector (cf. Becker-Schmidt, 2003), was also de-thematised in the GDR. Thus, the GDR socialism in practice had not been able to solve gender inequality, as it did not develop past a bisected equality (cf. Baader/Koch/Neumann, 2023), in which the double burden still primarily affected women. Marxist theoretical work within the GDR did not question either the naturalisation of women's responsibility for private reproduction, nor the social hierarchisation of production and reproduction.

Myths in education history are origin stories, some even call them 'narratives' because they are often repeated, in ways which give rise to different ideas and motifs about education and upbringing and additional dimensions of meaning and charge to the concept of education itself. Jessen (2004) has characterised a pattern of interpretation that has been described time and again for the history of German education (Bollenbeck, 1994), in which a special form of intertwining of national and educational semantics as cultural semantics took place. In the 19th century, it guided perceptions, prompted institutionalisation, and also motivated the behaviour of an elite of humanities-based educationalists, even if other ideas were ultimately used to counteract it, such as the educational value of science and the natural sciences (see, for example, Brüggemann, 1967; Daum, 1998 on the debate about the 'educational value' of natural science). Myths in education, in the sense that they are used here, consist of various elements, images and other set pieces that are repeatedly invoked and put into circulation in connection with the concept of education and upbringing, as they have developed over the last 250 years or so, particularly in Europe, in connection with the emergence of educational systems. For example, the idea of a legitimate, comprehensive educational claim to educate all people, an education for all, has such myth-making potential and includes stories of the educational heroes who campaign for it, of teachers and school politicians who try to enforce this claim in one way or another. Another one of these stories is the one of the poor, socially disadvantaged child who is interested in education but has no access to it and who, ultimately, still finds access to this education. Counter-narratives to this revolve around the idea of a free path for the capable (freie Bahn dem Tüchtigen) or that of the highly gifted child (hochbegabtes Kind). The idea of a beautiful childhood (schöne Kindheit) also has a myth-making power with various elements - such as free and unsupervised access to nature - and can serve as an educational myth. As such, these myths have a connecting and orientating effect on the actions of actors and the work of institutions in the educational field, both within organisations themselves, in its discourses, in self-portrayals and in education policy. In different time periods and in specific contexts, objections and contradictions, struggles and disputes about educational myths, about their interpretation and individual appropriation can be observed in the educational field.

As a consequence of the ten-year school, known as the polytechnical high school (Polytechnische Oberschule, POS) and planned as the general compulsory school from 1959 to replace the previous eight-year compulsory school, the upper secondary school was henceforth referred to as the extended secondary school (Erweiterte Oberschule, EOS). It replaced the previous secondary school that led to secondary-school graduation (Abitur) after four years. The requirement of the Law on the Socialist Development of the School System of December 2, 1959, to combine school and vocational training, resulted in the stipulation that EOS vocational training had to be completed at the same time as a general university entrance qualification was to be obtained. However, the shortening of the EOS to two school years following the ten-year compulsory school, which had become apparent since 1965, no longer allowed for simultaneous vocational training. The goal of unified school policy, which was set out in the Law on the Unified Socialist Education System of February 25, 1965, of allowing pupils to move on to an EOS of just two years after completing the compulsory POS, was a source of considerable conflict. In preparation for the reduction in the length of the four-year EOS, so-called transition classes were introduced at the EOS in 1968/69, for which the POS curricula applied.

In addition, the vocational training with Abitur (Berufsausbildung mit Abitur, BmA) form of education, fraught with organisational problems, economically unproductive and with no effect on pupils' studies, was phased out from 1967. It was replaced by 'scientific-practical work', which took the form of project work in suitable companies for small groups of pupils four hours per week in grade 11 and in the first half of grade 12. In addition to the EOS (1.6 percent of all schools in 1990), the university entrance qualification could also be acquired in special schools (0.6 percent), children's and youth sports schools (0.5 percent) (cf. Uhlig & Wiegmann, 1994) and in adult education institutions.

The BmA was also retained until the end of the GDR. This route was used by those pupils who were interested in studying after completing the 10th grade with good grades, but who had not applied for the EOS after the 8th or later during the 10th grade for various reasons, or by those whose application had previously been rejected. They were thus able to obtain both the general university entrance qualification and a skilled worker's certificate in a special Abitur grade at a state-run vocational school in a three-year course.

From 1982/83, the Ministry of Education (Ministerium für Volksbildung) consistently implemented the provisions of the current education laws. The admission criteria, which were set according to economic, social and political indicators, provided further sources of social conflict, and generally only allowed one or two pupils in a class to move on to the EOS. There was no legal entitlement to do so. In addition to academic performance, the decisive factors for admission by commissions headed by the school council responsible were social commitments of the pupils. Minimum political requirements for the parents and the political loyalty of the applicants were assumed. Social background (support for so-called workers' and farmers' children, Arbeiter- und Bauernkinder) and other measures to create a so-called socialist intelligentsia played a significant role, especially in the first two decades after 1945. The graduation rate from all educational institutions leading to university entrance qualifications rose from around 3 percent of an age cohort in the first post-war years to an average of 14 percent since the 1970s. EOS graduates achieved an average share of 8-9 percent. Around 98 percent of school graduates went on to study at university level, with around 80 percent of the first-year students successfully completing their studies (cf. Geißler, 2023, pp. 1143-1220).

In the GDR, extracurricular activities were seen as a special feature of education and schooling (Law on the Unified Socialist Education System, Gesetz über das einheitliche, sozialistische Bildungssystem, 1965, Section 6 (2)). They were instruments for meaningful leisure activities as well as for promoting talent and personality development according to the lawful principle of the unity of education and upbringing (Law on the Participation of the Youth of the German Democratic Republic in the Struggle for the Comprehensive Construction of Socialism and the Comprehensive Promotion of their Initiative in Leading the National economy and the State, in the Workplace, Schools, in Culture and Sports, Gesetz über die Teilnahme der Jugend der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik am Kampf um den umfassenden Aufbau des Sozialismus und die allseitige Förderung ihrer Initiative bei der Leitung der Volkswirtschaft und des Staates, in Beruf, Schule, bei Kultur und Sport, 1964, Section 11 (1)).

Fields of activity in which pupils and apprentices could pursue their inclinations, abilities, gifts and talents were essential areas of science, technology, sport and culture that were important to the state. The fields of activity in which pupils and apprentices could pursue their interests, abilities, gifts and talents were areas of science or natural sciences, technology, sport, and culture that were also deemed to be politically significant. Numerous extracurricular organisations, such as the so-called Pioneer Houses, as well as sports clubs, larger companies and various state-run companies, served a wide range of students interests. As early as the 1950s, and even more so since the 1960s, many after school groups (Arbeitsgemeinschaften, AGs) were created. Including the school day-care centre, they were suitable for supplementing and deepening regular lessons and for integrating children within the realm of GDR schooling as much as possible.

At the beginning of the 1970/71 school year, 22 after-school groups were created for grades 9 and 10 of the polytechnical secondary schools in accordance with a so-called framework programme (Arbeitsgemeinschaften nach Rahmenprogramm, AGR). Offered as a two-hour long, optional, non-graded course per week over two school years, they went beyond the wide-ranging system of other after school activities but remained far removed from radical differentiation in the sense of course teaching in favour of the unity principle (Einheitsprinzip, see also unified schooling). Despite considerable differences between individual schools, these courses were frequented by just over a third of children, mainly those who wanted to move on to extended secondary schools (Erweiterte Oberschulen, EOS) after grade 10. In comparison to the otherwise strictly systematised schooling at polytechnical secondary schools (Polytechnische Oberschulen, POS), extracurricular activities could be experienced as a certain freedom in terms of both content and method, without the overarching state educational and training goals losing any of their claims for influence.

The Free German Youth (Freie Deutsche Jugend, FDJ), founded in 1946 under the leadership of the SED party, was the only youth organisation permitted in the GDR. The FDJ had no concrete precursors in German history. Rather, it was modeled on the Soviet youth organisation Komsomol (Skyba, 2022, p. 207). The FDJ's target group was 14- to 25-year-olds (ibid., p. 205). Its members primarily included pupils, students, and conscripts. Trainees from vocational training were organised in the FDJ to a lesser extent (Mählert, 2001, p. 56). In general, members of the Pioneer Organisation joined the FDJ almost automatically after a formal inauguration ceremony into adolescence (Jugendweihe). By the end of 1949, the FDJ already had almost one million members, accounting for approximately one-third of the young people in the Soviet occupation zone (Sowjetische Besatzungszone, Ohse, 2009, p. 76). By the mid-1960s, membership had grown to 56 percent. By the 1970s, 70 percent of adolescents were registered as members in the association’s statistics, and by the 1980s, this figure had risen to 80 percent (Mählert, 2001, p. 56).

The FDJ was considered the "party's fighting reserve" (Ohse, 2009, p. 76). Like the pioneer organisation, it combined responsibilities in the areas of education and leisure. Its goal was to educate young people in the spirit of socialism. This included recruiting young people for urgent tasks and economic projects (cf. Skyba, 2022, p. 205): Young people were encouraged to participate in large and small projects to build socialism, be it whether through the construction of oil pipelines, road networks, or housing (Mählert, 2001, p. 30).

The basic organisational structure of the FDJ was established by 1952 and remained intact throughout the history of the GDR, with only minor adjustments. The delegate assembly (Delegiertenversammlung), which convened at intervals of several years, was intended to legitimise the hierarchical structure as a seemingly democratic one. As the formal representative body, the central council (Zentralkommittee) granted additional authority to the leadership's decisions. However, the actual power lay with the secretaria of the central council (Sekretariat des Zentralrats), which was exclusively staffed by SED members and had a comprehensive administrative apparatus structured according to areas of responsibility. All fundamental decisions of the secretariat had to be authorised or mandated by the SED leadership before they could be adopted (see Skyba, 2022, pp. 209f.).

For FDJ organisers, it was a challenge to reconcile this political involvement and the associated projects and demands with the genuine interests of young people. "The partial integration of the interests and needs of their clientele", as Skyba puts it, "became an indispensable prerequisite for organisational commitment and thus for the responsiveness and mobilisability of the target group" (ibid., p. 206). This situation escalated in 1953, for example, after it became clear that young people were disproportionately represented among the demonstrators and insurrectionists of June 17 (Skyba, 2000, pp. 243ff.). Accordingly, from then on, the interests of young people were intended to be given greater consideration and the young people themselves were to be granted more freedom to shape their own lives. Thus, choirs, amateur theatre and dance groups were founded; the world festival (Weltfestspiele) was held at various intervals from 1964 onwards; and in the same year, the radio station DT64 was founded. In the 1980s, attempts were also made to influence young people through leisure activities that were considered particularly attractive to them – such as concerts by major pop and rock artists from West Germany, Great Britain, and the USA (Skyba, 2022, p. 223).

The "tension between the execution of youth policy directives of the SED leadership on the one hand and the integration of young people's interests on the other" (ibid., p. 206) had an impact, in various degrees and phases, throughout the GDR’s entire history. The FDJ played an important role in some GDR citizens' biographies, as membership and participation in activities made community building and education possible. Nevertheless, the organisation was also viewed critically because it imposed constraints and propagated political messages.

Generations can be viewed in three ways: there are generations within families, in educational relationships and in the historical social sense. Family generations exist based on ancestry and consist of children, parents, grandparents and, occasionally, great-grandparents (cf. Alexi, 2014). Generations in educational relationships include a mediating, older generation and an appropriating, younger generation. However, newer theories on this topic now emphasise mutual receptive learning between the generations, so that they can no longer be clearly separated into a mediating and an appropriating generation (cf. Ecarius, 2008).

The historical and social understanding of generations is based on the ideas of Karl Mannheim (1964) and describes generations as groups of people who, due to their year of birth and their spatial location, have had similar historical, cultural and social experiences and thus develop similar mentalities. In the context of the history of German division, Thomas Ahbe and Rainer Gries (2011) have undertaken a GDR-specific generation systematisation. It covers the birth years 1893 to 1986 and differentiates six different generations: the generation of the distrustful patriarchs (1893–1916), the reconstruction generation (core years 1925–1934), the functioning generation (core years 1935–1945), the integrated generation (core years 1949–1956), the de-bordered generation (core years 1960–1972) and the children of the fall of the Berlin Wall (1975–1986). The name-giving factors here are experiences in the respective political systems as well as in the development processes of the GDR that were respectively witnessed.

Theories of generations from the sociology of knowledge are interested in the specific constitution of historical and social generations (see Mannheim, 1965). From this perspective, generations are formed, for example, through birth cohorts, a similar spatial and temporal location or shared historical, cultural and social experiences (see ibid.). In addition, there is a pedagogical concept of generations, which represents an important reference point and basic concept (Müller, 1999) within education studies. Schleiermacher questions how – from an educational perspective – relationships between generations, i.e. the younger and older generations, are structured (Schleiermacher, 1957). Theoretical developments in generational relationships show that generational relationships are not one-sided, i.e. it is no longer just about how the older generation raises the younger generation, but rather how the relationality and reciprocity of the relationships between the generations in the educational process and thus of the generational relationship is emphasised (Baader, 2018, p. 81). Thinking about generational relationships in relational terms also means not only understanding the generational relationship in binary terms but designing generational relationships in relation to gender relations and, among other things, asking about the specific links between generation and gender, while also not ignoring power relations. This perspective has also been focused on by recent research on childhood, which has fundamentally highlighted that generational difference, i.e. the distinction between children and adults, who are each endowed with different rights, is part of the social structure of modern societies (Alanen, 2005).

With regard to education in the GDR, a doubled generational relationship can be assumed (cf. Baader/Koch/Kroschel, 2021). This means that older children or adolescents were encouraged to help raise younger children to become socialist personalities and to orient themselves towards the official values of the GDR. The associated appeals were strongly gendered, for example when it came to who should help whom, with what and how.

In connection with education in the GDR, there is also talk of the fundamental equality of generations or generational equality (Andresen, 2006, p. 213). However, this must be rejected in view of authoritarian and violent educational conditions (Lenski, 2023) and represents more of a state self-description than an analysis of generational power relations in the GDR.

The concept of ideology as it was used in the GDR differed explicitly from other versions of the term, such as those from the sociology of knowledge (Wissenssoziologie, see Karl Mannheim), and was based on Marx and Engels's reflections on German Ideology (MEW 3), that initially linked people's ideas and worldviews with the social conditions in which they live and their position in those social conditions. Ideology was understood in the GDR as a system of social (political, economic, legal, educational, artistic, moral, philosophical, etc.) views that express certain class interests and include corresponding behavioural norms, attitudes, and evaluations (philosophical dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 546).

According to historical materialism – as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels characterised their conception of history – there is a lawful sequence of different relations of production (Produktionsverhältnisse) in different social formations, driven by the development of the forces of production (Produktionskräfte). It is assumed that consciousness reflects the social conditions in which the bearers of consciousness live, namely their social existence. Within class society (Klassengesellschaft), such as capitalism, there are different classes of people who each occupy different positions and economic conditions - in capitalism the class of wage workers and the class of the bourgeoisie, the owners of capital. Their respective worldviews, which are determined by their economic and social position, are then understood as a class ideology (Klassenideologie). The totality of the views and interests of a class reflect the social situation of its members.

What is problematic now – following the Marxist position – is not the fact of a socially determined and particular consciousness, but the ideology that declares a particular interest to be the interest of all: the ideas of the ruling bourgeoisie, the bourgeois ideology. By separating work into intellectual work (of the ruling class) and physical work (of the exploited class), consciousness becomes independent and thus obscures objective conditions (objektive Verhältnisse) of material practice. The working class possesses an ideology that can be regarded as truly scientific due to its objective position in society and this serves an integral role in overcoming capitalism. The antagonism between bourgeois and socialist ideology was seen as an irreconcilable struggle (unversöhnlicher Kampf) in which a weakening of one side inevitably means a strengthening of the other.

Socialist ideology thus became everyone's concern: one had to be on the side of the working class and its interests, to fight against bourgeois ideology and to work for the construction of socialism and communism. Based on this understanding of an ideology that needed to be developed, ideological education was set against spontaneous consciousness based on individual everyday experience and became an important educational goal in the GDR. The goal was to educate comprehensively developed socialist personalities whose skills and knowledge would be closely linked to the truly scientific ideology of the working class (cf. Neuner, 1973).

The term indicates that not everything is considered equally worthy of being put in an image and thus framed and highlighted. Irene Dölling developed the term "image-worthy" in direct conjunction with one of her analyses of stereotypical ideas of masculinity and femininity in the GDR. The emergence of the term thus has a direct reference to gender relations in the visual worlds of the GDR. Dölling examined photos in widely circulated GDR magazine publications that show women and men in their everyday reality (Dölling, 1991, p. 7). Based on the thesis that there was no equality between the sexes in the GDR, especially with regard to the allocation of production and reproduction work, and that this fundamental separation was not eliminated (ibid., p. 197) until the end of the GDR, Dölling uses images to show that traditional gender relations remained largely unbroken despite women’s participation in the workforce (ibid., p. 8; see also Baader/Koch/Neumann, 2023 for further reference on illustrations in GDR textbooks and children's books).

Two fundamental image-theoretical assumptions form the backdrop for Dölling’s analyses, namely that images have a great power of fascination, and that social and political ideas and norms are revealed in images (Dölling, 1991, p. 8). In the context of her "Cultural History of Gender Relations in the GDR" („Kulturgeschichte der Geschlechterverhältnisse für die DDR”, ibid., p. 9), Dölling attributed great importance to images and investigated, among other things, which aspects of the lives of women and men are and are not included in the image, i.e. are not worthy of being depicted (ibid., p. 7). For Dölling, the question of image-worthiness has both a heuristic and a methodological dimension regarding the analysis of living and gender relations, which on the one hand sharpens the view of gender relations and on the other hand produces important results on the social positioning of women. The main results of this study can be illustrated by the character figure of the working mother (ibid., p. 197). Motherhood, for example, is figuratively staged through the symbiosis of women’s and children’s bodies (ibid., p. 201), which conveys the idea that women have a ‘different purpose’ than men (ibid.). At the same time, however, housework is figuratively pushed to the margins (ibid., p. 200) by the dominant representation of women’s professional activity, in that it does not take on a pictorial form (ibid., p. 211). Rather, the successful compatibility of career, family and motherhood because of socialist employment and family policy was portrayed, while the associated double burden on women was not or only very rarely visible (cf. ibid., p. 208ff.).

In contributions to the history of education in the GDR, the German Central Pedagogical Institute (Deutsches Pädagogisches Zentralinstitut, DPZI) and subsequently the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the GDR (Akademie der Pädagogischen Wissenschaften, APW) are often referred to as leading pedagogical institutions (Pädagogische Leitinstitutionen, cf. Eichler & Uhlig, 1993, p. 118; Malycha, 2009, p. 171) or leading institutions (cf. Zabel, 2009, p. 88; Tenorth, 2017, p. 207). These terms refer to the centralised state orientation and the functional claim of both institutions, which were directly subordinate to the Ministry of Education (Ministerium für Volksbildung, MfV) and operated according to decisions of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (Zentralkomittee der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschland). From these state bodies, the leading pedagogical institutions were assigned tasks for research and planning, conception of teaching materials, teacher training and cadre training. In the work of both institutions, demands for a recognised scientific institution played just as important a role as the need for comprehensive ideological control by the SED-led government.

Plans to establish the DPZI date back to 1945. On the instruction of the administrative bodies of the Soviet Military Administration in Germany (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland, SMAD), an non-university pedagogical institute was created in 1949, which was granted the independent right to award doctorates in 1954. The main fields of work were research into subject teaching methods (see also subject teaching methodologies), and their application in curriculum work and teacher training. To support this, departments were set up to produce theoretical analyses e.g. on Soviet pedagogy or psychology (cf. Zabel, 2009, p. 402; see also pedagogical psychology). The results of this substantive work were incorporated into the development of basic policy guidelines and laws, e.g. in the Law on the Unified Socialist Education System (Gesetz über das einheitliche sozialistische Bildungssystem, 1965). The DPZI was restructured several times during its existence, and at the end of the 1950s saw radical political disciplinary measures and new appointments to leadership positions (Wiegmann 1993, p. 79f.).

Towards the end of the 1960s, the APW was founded, based on the Soviet model of the same name, and previous organisational units of the DPZI were integrated into it. Structured into institutes, work centres, and departments, from 1970 onwards, the academy was given extensive powers for the coordination of pedagogical and subject-methodological research in the higher education sector and expert functions for teaching materials and specialist publications in school and teacher training. It was to carry out centralised and purposeful large-scale research and to implement this in reforms and evaluations of curricula and materials in general school education at the national level. Research and surveys were also conducted in the field of ideological education, sociology of education, and pedagogical psychology. Towards the end of the 1980s, the resulting conflicts caused internal disputes between APW and MfV leadership officials and ministerial devaluation of key research results (Döbert & Geißler, 1999, p.11f.).

At the beginning of the German transformation period in 1989/90, the work of the APW was heavily criticised by researchers from East and West Germany, particularly with regard to its political and ideological function. The academy was dissolved at the end of 1990 by the Federal Ministry of Education and Science (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Malycha, 2008, pp. 160–163). Surviving files and legacies of both institutions are archived and accessible via the archive of the Research Library for the History of Education at DIPF (Bibliothek für Bildungsgeschichtliche Forschung des DIPF).

This neologism refers to the only scientific (Eichhorn I., 1969) materialist doctrine and explanation of the world, according to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who founded it. It was further developed by Lenin (and also by Stalin until 1956) and other politically and ideologically (temporarily) accepted theoreticians of the workers' movement. It served as the theoretical basis for the struggle of the working class until the global (Marx) or initially national (Lenin) victory under the leadership of revolutionary parties of the working class, which then – so the conviction goes – made it possible to build socialism and subsequently achieve communism. According to its own understanding, Marxism-Leninism included philosophical or historical and dialectical materialism, political economy and the doctrine of scientific communism. The term was used in the Soviet Union from the 1920s onwards to describe the ideological doctrine of the Communist Party (in the Soviet Union, the CPSU/Bolsheviks) and other national revolutionary workers parties or parties of a new type as a programme and ideology (in the sense of an ideological doctrine). It also served to distinguish it from competing workers' parties that differed in their programmes and ideologies. Marxism-Leninism as the ideology and programme of national parties with a claim to leadership in all social matters reduced and condensed the views of Marx, Engels and Lenin into an ideological dogma, while at the same time partially contradicting their works and ignoring or smoothing over opposing views. After the so-called establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat (Diktatur des Proletariats) in the states of the Soviet-led bloc, Marxism-Leninism became the dominant party ideology. It permeated all areas of social life and formed the ideological basis of content in all parts of the GDR education system.

From a cultural studies perspective, memories can be described as social phenomena (cf. Moller, 2010). Individual memories are shaped by social and cultural environments, for example through conversations with others or current social developments. Since memories look at previous experiences from today's perspective, the present has a certain influence on memories. What people remember is repeatedly recalled and further developed in current social interactions. Memories thus form the identity of the group in which they are passed on. Events that are not recalled are forgotten over time (cf. Welzer, 2011). Memories are therefore always selective and perspective-based (cf. Assmann, 2013). In addition to the social interactions that guide the selection of memories, emotions are also important for the formation of memories. In this context, cultural studies have shown that, due to emotionalisation, films or stories one views or is told by others can also be perceived as one's own memories (cf., among others, Welzer, Moller, Tschuggnall, 2002).

In addition to individual and collective memories, there exists also a public culture of remembrance (Assmann, 2013). This includes, for example, commemorative days, media representations or memorial sites. Regarding the memory of the GDR, according to Martin Sabrow (2009), three different dimensions of remembering can be identified: the remembrance of dictatorship, arrangement and progress. Instances of remembering dictatorship focus on the political system and its repressive aspects, whereas remembrance of arrangement includes the memory of the right life in the wrong one (das richtige Leben im falschen) and the memory of progress puts the socialist achievements in the foreground, such as the supposedly more equal role of women.

Military education was a complex system of pre-military training in the GDR, which included not only schooling but also all other areas of society in a biographically staggered system. The overarching task of military education was described as the development of military awareness, which includes knowledge, attitudes, emotions, as well as acts of will and convictions regarding the defence of socialism and is expressed in a conscious personal contribution to the defence of the socialist fatherland (Ilter/Herrmann/Stolz, 1974, p. 30).

In a narrow understanding of the term, military education referred to pre-military training in the sense of acquiring military fitness. In this sense, it was about practical military exercises to prepare for basic military (and military sports) training in the National People's Army of the GDR (Nationale Volksarmee, NVA), and at the same time about recruiting young professionals and state service personnel for the NVA. Extracurricular activities such as those in the Society for Sports and Technology (Gesellschaft für Sport und Technik, GST) played a central role in this. In a broad understanding of the term, military education also included the functions, tasks and objectives of defence policy in the sense of an ideological education program. Here, it was not reduced to military usability but was at least equally concerned with promoting a specific awareness and shaping military readiness and motivation. A variety of elements, equally permeated with ideology for teaching in various school subjects, could be placed in the context of this broader understanding of military education.

Military instruction was a specific form of military education that was anchored in the (school) curriculum from the 1978/79 school year onwards. This instruction, which included militaristic practical and ideological elements (Decker & Koch, 2021, p. 4), did not have the status of a school subject. It was therefore not listed in official schedules and was not graded either. It had no stringent curriculum, was not linked to the training of corresponding specialist teachers and is not considered in textbooks and periodicals of pedagogical provenance (Geißler, 2023, pp. 1191-1197). It was set at four double lessons each on national defence issues for the 9th and 10th grades. In addition, there were about 3 weeks of courses/training camps over this period. While the (theoretical) lessons on national defence issues took place together, different gender-specific focuses were set for the practical training. The focus for boys was pre-military training, closely linked to the goal of recruiting them for military careers (course curriculum, 1984). For girls, the focus was on civil defence and imparting basic knowledge and skills on how to behave correctly in dangerous situations and how to carry out the necessary measures to protect life and aid (ibid., p. 7). Despite this differentiation, both training courses also included elements of the other (cf. ibid.). In view of the peace movement in the Federal Republic at the same time, the introduction of military training was sharply criticised by the churches, sometimes publicly rejected by parents, and in several cases, participation was actively refused.

In everyday understanding and use of the term, myths are untrue stories about the world, its beginnings and developments, or simply persistent, false stories about significant events in a society or community. It is usually assumed that these stories, i.e. their untruth, must be exposed in a critical manner. In contrast, there is an analytical concept of myth used in the humanities and cultural studies, which can serve as a heuristic model in the study of socially significant narratives (cf. Segal, 2015). Considering various aspects that different theorists and different disciplines use for the concept of myth, Segal suggests developing a non-rigid concept of myth, i.e. one that is not closely tied to several simultaneously occurring characteristics (Segal, 2015, p. 3ff.). In this sense, myths are initially rudimentary narratives that have a beginning and an end. The events that are shaped in them extend over time, develop around main characters, often in certain constellations of people. Myths therefore often consist of a recurring configuration of actors and actions. Their contents represent something significant for individuals and a certain group, and develop meaning for a larger group of actors, create identity and thus also fulfil social functions, such as reducing complexity and legitimation. The myth conveys strong convictions or even a kind of belief in specific interpretations. The myth exerts a certain power over those who believe in it. With Roland Barthes, one of the better-known theorists of myth, the myth can also be defined as a form of representation that appeals to interpretations that are contained in a cultural context as presupposed or assumed background beliefs. He therefore describes myth as a secondary pattern of interpretation or as a rhetoric of purloined speech (Barthes, 2012, p. 273). The functioning of myth characterised in this way can be deciphered and mythology thus becomes an instrument of criticism of the present. Barthes shows in detail how history and the historical are naturalised in the myths of everyday life, transform into nature and thus appear as unchangeable as, for example, the myth of rationality (Rationalitätsmythos), that allows no alternatives to itself (cf. Hericks, 2017).

Oral history is a methodological approach to historical research that became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s. Oral history does not rely on writing, images and materiality as sources, but on surveys and interviews with contemporary witnesses, i.e. on oral sources. These are intended to either supplement written accounts or introduce completely different perspectives and points of view that are more oriented towards the experiences of subjects. The focus is deliberately placed on the subjectivity of experiences, memories and emotions. Oral history is based on an old form of transmitting experiences and life stories through oral narratives. Oral history refers to both the method of oral questioning and its recording as well as the resulting source (cf. Apel, 2022).

One renowned oral history project consists of interviews and memories of 600 former forced laborers during the National Socialist era, while another project that was carried out in the early 2000s provides an insight into the experiences of 20 million forced labourers. These biographical interviews have been archived in digital archives and are accessible in several languages (Pagenstecher, 2016). Answers to the question of the reuse of oral history sources mark important cornerstones for methodological and archival discussions.

The increased reflection and importance of oral history is closely linked to movements in the history of knowledge such as that of history from below (Geschichte von unten), history of the common people or everyday history (Alltagsgeschichte), i.e. people who do not necessarily leave written accounts due to their living conditions. The memories of people affected by persecution, expulsion and flight also take up a lot of space in oral history. It is thus also closely concerned with cultures of remembrance and memorial work. There are also points of contact between oral history, biographical research and biographical interviews. Since it involves interviewing people who are still alive, oral history can only take place in the context of contemporary history and is closely linked to the discussion about contemporary witnesses.

Large and well-known oral history projects were also carried out by researchers studying the GDR, such as the study "The People's Own Experience. An Archaeology of Life in the Industrial Province of the GDR" („Die volkseigene Erfahrung. Eine Archäologie des Lebens in der Industrieprovinz der DDR“) by Lutz Niethammer, Alexander von Plato and Dorothee Wierling (1991). This study presents 30 biographical interviews that were conducted during the period of reunification and were intended to preserve people's memories of 40 years of life in the GDR. The study provides insights into private life in the GDR, contends the political nature of the private (von Plato, 1991) and addresses local political culture (Niethammer, 1991, p. 45).

The term was used in the GDR state-supporting context of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and science to characterise a certain feature of social consciousness and the class-bound nature of an ideology or worldview. From this perspective, however, one's own epistemological position is simultaneously demarcated and characterised in relation to bourgeois philosophy and bourgeois objectivism or the idea of non-partisan objectivity. Only Marxism-Leninism does not deny the location-bound nature of the worldview represented and expresses it explicitly, i.e. it professes to take sides with the working class and thus, according to this understanding, with historical progress. In socialism (according to its own account, the GDR was in this phase), partisanship, namely partisanship for the working class, i. e. for the ruling SED (Socialist Unity Party of Germany, Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschland), coincides with scientific truth – and in that sense also with objectivity. Time and again, when reference was made to scientific rigor in discourse on education, for example when the scientific nature of teaching was discussed, partisanship in this sense was also immediately considered. In this way, it was possible to demand endorsements of the SED's programme and resolutions again and again as a plea for scientific rigour. The Marxist-Leninist conception of a partisan science and its practice described above was sharply criticised after the fall of the German wall since, in Western understanding, science categorically excluded partisanship, even if various scientific theoretical approaches take into account the specific nature and historicity of scientific knowledge.

The GDR's pedagogical congresses were an important format for specialised political debate, and thus also a central instrument for the GDR’s education sector legislative force. Similar congresses were held for other scientific disciplines, such as philosophy, sociology, history, and others. The 1st to 4th Pedagogical Congresses took place before the founding of the GDR, were held annually and organised by the Central Administration for Public Education set up by the Soviet Military Administration in Germany (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland, SMAD). After the founding of the state on January 1, 1950, a total of five further congresses (5th in 1956, 6th in 1961, 7th in 1970, 8th in 1978, and finally 9th in 1989) – no longer held annually, but at much longer intervals – were organised by the newly formed Ministry for Education (Volksbildungsministerium, MfV) with the involvement of various commissions of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (Zentralkomittee der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschland, CC of SED). Most of those invited were representatives of the various specialist political departments of the MfV and the CC of SED, scientists from the largest non-university institutions for scientific pedagogy (see also leading pedagogical institutions ), but also from universities and colleges, as well as representatives from educational practice, such as teachers, educators, head teachers and school officials. In terms of content, the focus of the debate was on current specialist political issues. The programmes reveal various education policy and pedagogical objectives, such as guidelines for teacher training, youth policy, improving administrative work, theoretical and practical orientation towards Soviet pedagogy (see also Soviet pedagogy) or the development and implementation of polytechnical education (see also polytechnical education).

The congress programme consisted of lectures and presentations as well as working groups and round table discussions. The work results were usually discussions, reports and, above all, resolutions with further directives for specialised political work. The fact that the educational congresses were an important instrument of regulatory policy becomes clear through the specifications for the substantive discussions by the CC or the MfV, which mostly related to the subsequent five-year plans and realpolitik problems, and by the sometimes intensive planning, substantive preparation and organisation of the congresses in terms of procedure, speeches and composition of participating guests. A particularly impressive example of this is the 9th and last pedagogical congress from 12 to 16 June 1989, in the preparation of which a directive participation script and time schedule was developed, in which even the time and duration of the applause were planned (Kaack 1993, p. 91; see also files on the IX. pedagogical congress at the Federal Archive, Bundesarchiv, 1989).

During the GDR, pedagogical psychology was established through the intersections with its neighbouring disciplines of clinical psychology and medicine. In the 1950s, physiological findings by the Soviet physician Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) initially provided the primarily medical-biological content for the first major science-political offensive by GDR science to develop these findings according to the Soviet model (Busse, 1998, p. 166). The young psychological science of the GDR was confronted with these demands, for example from the working group for pedagogical psychology at the German Central Pedagogical Institute (Deutsches Pädagogisches Zentralinstut, DPZI). There, it was hoped that the application of Pavlov’s reflex theory would help develop objective methods for investigating the realities of education (Zabel, 2009, p. 149). After Stalin's death in 1953, the ban on pedology that had been passed in the USSR in 1936 by party decision was lifted and expanded the repertoire of research methods applicable in socialist pedagogy in the GDR to include psychological testing procedures (see Shibanova-Harris, 2022). The Soviet-inspired search within the GDR for suitable objective methods for the pedagogical research subjects of teacher training, lesson planning, ability and school transition assessment consequently led to the use of standardised psychological research methods (including experiments and observation methods). It was primarily pedagogical questions that were to be investigated with the help of psychological research. Corresponding demands were made at the 6th Pedagogical Congress in 1961 in favour of increasing the importance of this research.

During polytechnicisation efforts (see also polytechnical education, polytechnical secondary school), towards the end of the 1950s, interest in education policy became more clearly focused on value creation from productive forces, so that the Society for Psychology in the GDR, newly founded in 1962, held its first congress under the title “Psychology as a socially productive force”.

Despite all this, psychological theory was not often applied in the last two decades of the GDR and was instead heavily used for legitimising practical education. Assessments motivated by school policy (Kossakowski & Kühn, 2010; Malycha, 2008, p. 231ff.; 248ff.) meant that key research results from the Institute for Educational Psychology at the Academy of Educational Sciences (Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie der Akademie für Pädagogische Wissenschaften, APW) were only accessible through in-house media and not generally in book form.

Otherwise, psychological science successfully endeavoured to establish itself as an independent subject in higher education and to reform respective curricula. Until 1970, there were four universities in the GDR that offered higher education leading to a diploma in psychology. At the University of Leipzig, scientific psychology was devoted in particular to teacher training and operated under staff shortages and ongoing efforts to reform the course of study (Schönpflug & Lüer, 2011, p. 301). In the end, a total of 4,000 scientists from socialist and non-socialist countries took part in the prestigious "XXII International Congress for Psychology" of the Society for Psychology (Gesellschaft für Psychologie) in Leipzig in 1980 (cf. ibid.).

In their research work, historians give time and its sections a form; they divide time into different phases or epochs; they create temporal frameworks by carrying out periodisations. That belongs to the historical craft. But even if this is the everyday work of historians, the division is not self-evident, because – as Osterhammel notes – historians do not do this in meticulous deduction from supposedly self-explanatory ‘facts’ (Osterhammel, 2006, p. 47). Ideas of periodisation are often based on hidden conceptions which first give meaning to facts, as those of a particular epoch, and make them conceivable and recognisable as such. Even though Osterhammel speaks about the great epochal divisions and their difficulties and about whether and how these can be carried out in the context of a global history, the difficulties also apply to the consideration of smaller temporal units. Phase divisions, for example, undertaken in the consideration of political-revolutionary event history, in no way correspond to an objectively valid periodisation. The restructuring of socio-economic, social and political structures, such as state constitutions, is not identical with a specific date, such as the adoption of a constitution, but rather takes place over longer periods of time and again does not coincide with processes of change in ideas and everyday experiences. All of these different aspects have to be taken into account if one wants to make convincing proposals for periodisation.

Periodisations or phase divisions that have so far been undertaken for the history and the history of education of the GDR testify to the difficulties of making classifications that are convincing in every respect. For the history of the GDR, a division following the decades has often become common, for example: a prehistory between 1945 and 1949, followed by a developmental phase beginning with the founding of the GDR and lasting until the building of the Wall in 1961; a subsequent stabilisation phase until 1970/71, when Ulbricht resigned as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the SED; and then, under the aegis of Honecker, two phases, often once again subdivided in 1980, of the emergence of crisis phenomena until 1990. Anselm Doering-Manteuffel and Lutz Raphael have critically described this procedure of arriving at divisions for contemporary history as “decadeological” (dekadologisch, Doering-Manteuffel & Raphael, 2012, p. 25). Different aspects are taken into account in order to identify something constant in the individual phases and something that distinguishes them from the others – be it terms of office of government personnel, drastic measures that affected decisions and the approval of the population, or course corrections in economic and social policy. For the history of education in the GDR, the divisions also appear to differ depending on what is taken into view. This becomes clear in the Handbook of German Education History (Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte); there does not exist one single overarching division that encompasses all parts of the education and upbringing system, the system level and everyday experiences. In the section on general education, five phases are distinguished. After a phase of “new beginnings” in the Soviet Occupation Zone (Sowjetische Besatzungszone, SBZ) between 1945 and 1948, a transitional phase to the socialist school extended until 1958, followed by a phase of “polytechnical education reform” between 1958 and 1963/65, then the period of a unified education system and new curricula between 1963/65 and 1980. The last phase began in 1980 and extended to the end of the GDR (cf. Baske, 1998). A different picture emerges in the consideration of “pedagogical science,” where different phase divisions are evident (cf. Tenorth & Wiegmann, 2022). All divisions of the history of GDR education, however, assume a turning point in the 1960s, often linked to the entry into force of the “Law on the Unified Socialist Education System,” with which a structure for the entire education system was created that remained in this form for the rest of the GDR’s existence. Especially when – as has now rather become common – the history of the GDR and its education system is not regarded as a development completely separate from that of the other German state, but rather as characterised on the one hand by manifold entanglements and on the other by larger epochal types, similar phases of the history of education in the GDR are seen as those in the Federal Republic. From this perspective too, a major turning point is identified in the 1960s, and the developments thereafter are diagnosed as differentiation, modernisation and expansion of the education system, in which crisis phenomena – even in cautious self-observation – can be identified (cf. Tenorth, 2010).

The Pioneer Organisation was the children's organisation of the Free German Youth (Freie Deutsche Jugend, FDJ). From its founding in December 1948 until the end of the GDR, it was the only state-legitimised children's organisation in the GDR. Although membership was formally voluntary, it was regarded as mandatory by the state, which is also reflected in the rapid growth of membership numbers: At the time of its founding, already six percent of all school-age children were members; by the first anniversary of its founding, this number had risen to 30 percent (Kaiser, 2013, p. 75), and by 1959, the Pioneer Organisation included 84.3 percent of all children between the ages of 6 and 14. According to official figures, by the end of the GDR, almost all pupils of this age (99 percent) were members of the Pioneer Organisation (Kaiser, 2022, p. 190). Following Kaiser's interpretation, from the outset the pioneer organisation had the political and ideological goal of educating children to become loyal citizens in the sense of communist morality (Kaiser, 2022, p. 192). The ideological significance of the pioneer organisation is also reflected in the epithet "Ernst Thälmann," added in 1952. Thälmann, a former chairman of the communist party of Germany (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands, KPD) and a victim of national socialism, acted as a leading figure of communist education in the GDR and was a central figure within the anti-fascist founding myth (see, among others, Börrnert, 2003).

Every year on December 13, first-graders were welcomed into the Young Pioneers and familiarised with its respective commandments, symbols, and greetings. The 10 commandments of Young Pioneers („Die 10 Gebote der Jungpioniere") contained basic rules of conduct for younger children. They included, for example, love for the GDR and one's parents, friendship with Soviet children, diligent studying, helping with work, proudly wearing the blue neckerchief, as well as sports and cleanliness (cf. Ernst Thälmann Pioneer Organisation, 1983). In the fourth grade, Young Pioneers became Thälmann Pioneers. The 10 laws of Thälmann Pioneers („Die 10 Gesetze der Thälmannpioniere") formulated in detail the children's obligations towards the socialist state, the working class, and international solidarity. Specifically, the Pioneers were to wear their red neckerchief as a symbol of their affiliation with the SED, cultivate their friendship with the Soviet Union, study and work diligently, and engage in technical and cultural training to later become good FDJ members (cf. FDJ, 1975). With the formal youth inauguration ceremony (Jugendweihe) at the age of 14, adolescents were then accepted into the FDJ.

For members of the Pioneers, school and extracurricular activities overlapped and were mutually dependent (Tenorth, Kudella, Paetz, 1996, p. 99). Extracurricular activities were largely organised directly at school, and matters related to the Pioneer Organisation were addressed in class (Kaiser, 2013, p. 78 f.). In schools, Pioneers were organised, for example, into learning groups (Lernaktiven), later learning brigades (Lernbrigaden), to support underperforming students, complete homework and study together (Ansorg, 1997, p. 74). Until the 1950s, flag ceremonies (Fahnenappelle) were held weekly, and later on they were held on specific occasions, such as the start of the school year, the distribution of report cards, the opening of international children's day, or to commemorate communists. In addition, Pioneer members met three to four times a month in circles (Zirkel) at school or at the Pioneer house (Pionierhaus) to discuss books, do crafts, play sports, learn new songs or games, or discuss the behaviour of individual children. Pioneer afternoons (Pioniernachmittage) included leisure activities, such as trips to the theatre or the swimming pool (Kaiser, 2013, p. 79). At the general meetings, issues related to group life were discussed, and information, including its political and ideological interpretations, was disseminated. The Pioneer friendship (Pionierfreundschaft), to which all Pioneers of a school belonged, met approximately once every two months to celebrate, for example, Pioneer festivals, Pioneer birthdays, international children's day, and carnival, to organise the festival of learning (Fest des Lernens), to hold olympics, or discuss political issues (ibid., pp. 89–90). From 1952 onwards, large Pioneer meetings were organised centrally every few years. In addition to demonstrations, rallies and appeals, sporting events, cultural competitions and folk festivals were held at these meetings (ibid., p. 81).

Another key area of the Pioneers’ work was to offer children opportunities for recreation and relaxation within the framework of holiday care – which, among other things, served socialist education – whether in the form of holidays in central Pioneer camps, holiday hikes, or local holiday activities, including within the school (ibid., p. 90; Ansorg, 1997, pp. 113 f.). In addition to offering support for academic performance and leisure activities, from the founding of the Pioneer Organisation onward, Pioneers were also encouraged to perform so-called socially useful activities (gesellschaftlich nützliche Tätigkeiten) such as work placements, Subbotniks, or Timurhilfen (Tenorth, Kudella, Paetz, 1996, p. 140). Sponsor brigades (Patenbrigaden) were sought out in companies and work-oriented assignments in industry and agriculture were organised (Ansorg, 1997, p. 76).

Polytechnical education was one of the defining features of the GDR education system after 1959. It describes a conception of schooling and teaching that was closely linked to the development of Marxist-Leninist theory and politics. Marx had already called for a stronger integration of school with labour and advocated multifaceted (’poly’) preparation for all areas of the working world ('-technical'). Not only was the question of ownership to be addressed, but the knowledge-based mastery of the means of production should also be made possible. In the Soviet Union, approaches to such teaching were tried out, especially after Stalin's death in 1953.

The relationship to subject structure inherited from the concept of modern school remained a main challenge for the introduction of polytechnical education in the GDR.

In terms of its programme, polytechnics did not just claim to be a school subject. Rather, polytechnics was to be made the principle of the school curriculum as a whole and thus touched on questions of work socialisation and value formation, and later also the formation of the socialist personality (see also comprehensively developed socialist personality). The polytechnical idea also formed the basis for the introduction of the polytechnical secondary school as a compulsory, unified institution covering schooling of primary and secondary levels in 1965.

With the introduction of the compulsory eight-year primary school in 1946, the GDR’s education policy successfully replaced the traditional elementary school (Volksschule). In the next step, the SED leadership sought to raise compulsory schooling to secondary level in the context of establishing the foundations of socialism. To achieve this goal quickly, despite public irritation over the extension of compulsory schooling to ten years and some reservations about the participation of minors in productive work, the SED leadership took preparatory steps and legislative processing into its own hands. The School Act of 1959 (Schulgesetz, 1959) designated the ten-year general secondary school as the future of compulsory school. In the 1970s, the polytechnical secondary school (Polytechnische Oberschule, POS) was considered to have been established. In 1988/89, 90.4 percent of pupils had already successfully completed it.

As early as 1958, the SED leadership had also decreed that polytechnical education should include a day of practical training in production and technology instruction - albeit without sufficient conceptual preparation. The fact that Marx considered this area of education to be inevitable after the working class seized power, in order to understand the basic forms of human productive activity (produktives Tun) and to prepare for the necessary availability of the fully developed producer in a future industrial working world, provided sufficient legitimation. In addition, the subject had been reintroduced in the Soviet Union shortly before with a slightly different emphasis and after two decades of non-existence. In the GDR, polytechnical instruction included school gardening (grades 1-4) and craft instruction (grades 1-6). In grades 7-10, there were 4-5 hours per week of introduction to socialist production (Einführung in die Sozialistische Produktion), technical drawing (Technisches Zeichnen) and a day of instruction in socialist production or, from the 1970s onwards, the productive work of the pupils. As a rule, theoretical instruction and practical work in pupil workshops (especially in grade 7) and then, if possible, in the immediate operational production of agriculture or industry alternated every 14 days. At the same time, polytechnicality was conceived as a principle of general education. The polytechnical subjects, together with mathematical and scientific education, comprised around half of the entire curriculum.

Conceptually, the GDR health care system was oriented towards the goal of reducing or eliminating inequality as well as illness and death (Spree, 1981; cited in Braun, 2020). This objective emerged from the labour movement and included equalising unequal health conditions among different population groups, general and free access to health care, and a comprehensive de-commercialisation of the health care system (cf. Süß, 1998). A uniform and comprehensive social insurance system was established to organise financing and access to medical care for all citizens. In addition to curative medical care, disease prevention was a prominent objective, carried out for example through preventive examinations and vaccinations (cf. Ahrens, 2002, p. 42). In the interests of prevention, a significant expansion of the health care system in the form of polyclinics and outpatient clinics was promoted (cf. ibid.). These institutions, which were linked to the social policy of the Weimar Republic, played an important role in the comprehensive health care of the population of the GDR and their number increased continuously throughout the entire duration of the GDR (cf. Süß, 1998, p. 100).

In order to legally incorporate the structure and costs of the health care system into comprehensive macroeconomic planning (Ahrens, 2002, p. 42), the health care system was centrally controlled, initially by the German Central Administration for Health Care established in the Soviet occupation zone and, after the founding of the GDR, by the Ministry of Labour and Health Care and, from 1950, the Ministry of Health Care. The ministry acted as a link between the planning, the state actors and the state-run medical care facilities. From 1950, the Compulsory School Attendance Act stipulated that all education and upbringing issues relating to children with special needs should be separated from the special school system and transferred to the bodies for youth welfare/residential care (Becker, 1984, p. 61). Based on the dividing line established by the legislation between 'capable of education' and 'incapable of education', responsibility for children and adolescents from the latter categorie was henceforth delegated to the health and social services and excluded from the public education system (see Hübner, 2000).

Against the backdrop of seemingly comprehensive, free healthcare, the GDR healthcare system is one of the few areas of society within the SED state that is still associated with a multitude of positive assessments and connotations (Braun, 2020, pp. 352-354). These general assessments are contradicted by concrete analyses that reveal critical findings regarding the healthcare system. It is emphasised that pharmaceutical care was often inadequate and often based on so-called ‘re-developments’ of preparations available in the West (Braun, 2020) and that, contrary to the supposed equal treatment, political officials received special care (ibid.). In particular, the proximity to social utilitarian ideas in the sense of social hygiene is criticised, according to which the health of the 'people' or the 'national economy' and an increase in productivity were the actual goals of the health policy of the GDR (cf. Süß, 1998; Ahrens, 2002).

The term was coined in 1961 in an influential work by JD Bernal. It originally referred to a global development and came to be used in the GDR via translation by Ludwig Boll (Laitko, 1996, p. 35). The scientific-technological revolution was understood as a process of increasing scientification (Verwissenschaftlichung) of the means of production as well as of the forms and organizations of work and a steady increase in the level of education and increasing qualifications of workers (cf. Bialas, 1978).

Against the backdrop of the competing political system and the Cold War, the concept of a scientific-technological revolution played an important role in the GDR. The Marxist interpretation of economic developments after 1945 was fundamental: initially there was talk of a second industrial revolution (Zweite Industrielle Revolution), which was understood to be strongly influenced by technology, but now a scientific revolution was also diagnosed. Since the fundamental importance of understanding exact natural science for the advancement of socialist societies was assumed, it was important to ensure the integration of science as a productive force for society (Produktionskraft). The scientific and industrial developments of the scientific-technological revolution had significantly accelerated the process of developing natural science into a direct productive force and this process was understood to be up for completion under communism - according to the philosophical dictionary of the GDR from 1964 (Klaus & Buhr, 1964, p. 615).

This understanding of social and technological developments was used, not least in the field of education, to justify reforms as relevant to society. In 1970, Gerhart Neuner, director of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (Akademie der Pädagogischen Wissenschaften, APW) defined the scientific-technological revolution as a trend that would define the times, as a result of which mechanisation and scientification would permeate industry and social life alike, and the GDR's education system had to take this into account with its curriculum reform.

These are conceptions of state and society that aim to overcome a system that is based on competition and the oppression of the working classes. Overcoming this should lead to an alternative system in which egalitarian ideas are applied not only to political and social issues, but also to economic ones. The term socialism was coined and popularised in the 19th century. Very different movements and groups proclaimed that they were developing their own socialist, just and communal programs, including social reformers, Christians and anarchists. The version of so-called scientific socialism coined by Karl Marx (1818–1883) became particularly prominent. It argued in complex theoretical terms and formulated a version of world history that predicted the coming of communism as the abolition of exploitative conditions, which were characteristic of the capitalist economic systems of that time. The real socialist countries that had existed since 1917, including the GDR, claimed to be a part of this movement.

Since the 19th century, there have been other versions of socialism in history that prioritised either cultural and geopolitical differences (African socialism), other ideological components such as racism and nationalism (national socialism), or other political positions such as participation and anti-bureaucracy (democratic socialism) or adaptations to new times (socialism of the 21st century). For those societies that called themselves socialist between 1917 and 1991, in varying forms and for different lengths of time, certain similarities in their current development are assumed, which are commonly referred to as post-socialism.

A socialist general education was conceived of in the 1950s and was seen as the basis for further development of socialism as well as for individual vocational training and the path to further educational institutions in the education system up to university level. In contrast to a subjectively idealistic and abstractly humanistic conception of personality (Neuner, 1975, p. 30), the education research of the GDR found that all educational processes were inseparably embedded in living historical processes and decisively determined in terms of goal, content and method by the material life processes of society, the political struggles of the classes and their ideological reflections (ibid., p. 27). The general aspect of socialist general education was therefore essentially an orientation towards active appropriation of the historically concrete environment, of human culture in its entirety, in work, in learning, in culturally creative activities (ibid., p. 32). Socialist general education was thus based (1) on the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of the laws of social development (ibid., p. 38), and (2) saw the combination of instruction, productive work and gymnastics as the condition for comprehensive human development (ibid., p. 39), which through (3) ideological education was a comprehensive development of a specifically socialist personality (ibid.). A socialist personality development conceived of in this way was (4) considered a condition and guarantee for the embedding of education in the revolutionary struggle of the working class and its allies (ibid.).

With all this, education research in the GDR concentrated on contributing to the formation of well-developed and well-educated socialist personalities – especially in the institutions of the education system. The appeal to Marx's vision of the full development of every individual in a higher form of society excluded the free, individual development of personality (Marx, 1962, p. 618). Both the theory of socialist general education (Neuner, 1975) and the concept of socialist general education manifested in curricula and explanatory monographs tied up significant education research resources in the GDR, initially in the German Central Pedagogical Institute (Deutsches Pädagogische Zentralinstitut, DPZI) and from 1970 in the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (Akademie der Pädagogischen Wissenschaften, APW) (see also leading pedagogical institutions). Only gradually, from the mid-1970s onwards and especially towards the end of the 1980s, did the dogmatic thesis of teaching as the main field of education and training of the growing generation (cf. Tenorth & Wiegmann, p. 382, FN 80) give way to a carefully presented criticism from education research. Nevertheless, the insight of the interconnectedness of social processes in the formation of socialist personalities (cf. ibid., p. 419, FN 276) was unable to break through the prevailing policymaking in education and for research until the collapse of the GDR.

Under conditions of developing East-West competition in 1947, a paradigm shift towards the adaptation of so-called Soviet pedagogy began in the Soviet Occupation Zone (Sowjetische Besatzungszone, SBZ), which was forced through in 1948/49. This was followed by a reorientation towards a socialist perspective on society. Similar to the condemnation of developments favouring reform pedagogy (Reformpädagogik) in the decade after the Russian October Revolution by the resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On primary and middle schools" of 1931 and "On the curricula and school regulations of primary and middle schools" of 1932, the SED-leadership’s educational policy, in the name of socio-political and economic interests, was directed against the reform pedagogical tendencies of the first post-war years in the SBZ. In the period leading up to Stalin's death (March 5, 1953) and June 17, 1953, the Soviet version of an intentional learning school pedagogy based on instruction in conjunction with political-ideological education was adapted. The attempt to orient itself with developments in the Soviet education system up to the point of copying failed in 1953 in key respects. However, the "Regulation on the Lesson as a Basic Form of Schoolwork, the Preparation, Organisation and Implementation of the Lesson and the Monitoring and Assessment of Pupils’ Knowledge" of 1950 (Verordnung über die Unterrichtsstunde als Grundform der Schularbeit, die Vorbereitung, Organisation, und Durchführung der Unterrichtsstunde und die Kontrolle und Beurteilung der Kenntnisse der Schüler) had a lasting effect. For the staff who remained in the GDR until 1961 despite a steady exodus to the Federal Republic, the condemnation of the more demanding reform pedagogy and the return to the traditional learning concept made it easier to practice their profession. Although adaptation of the model of Soviet pedagogy subsequently tended to give way to Soviet influence and eventually even made cooperation projects possible, early translations of Soviet pedagogy textbooks (Yessipow, BP/Goncharow, NK 1948 and Ogorodnikov, IT/Shimbiriev, PN 1949) nevertheless had unbroken theoretical consequences, especially with regard to key concepts of upbringing, education and teaching. In addition, the semantic abolition of the traditional community concept in Makarenko’s conception of communality promoted the acceptance of Soviet pedagogy principles. Under the influence of Marxist-Leninist party ideology and the leading role of the SED, differently socialised education researchers lost the ability to have sovereign control over the foundations of pedagogy as a research domain. Despite the late distancing from Soviet pedagogical tendencies in the Gorbachev era, the effects of the adoption of Soviet pedagogy understood in this way can be seen in publications up until the end of the GDR.

From the 1950s onwards, a differentiated special needs education system (Sonderschulwesen) was established in the GDR (Regulation on the Schooling and Education of Children and Adolescents with Significant Physical and Psychological Impairments, Verordnung über die Beschulung und Erziehung von Kindern und Jugendlichen mit wesentlichen physischen und psychischen Mängeln, 1951). Special needs schools (Sonderschulen) and other special needs education institutions (Einrichtungen der Sonderpädagogik), including so called assisting schools (Hilfssschulen) had to ensure the education of all children, adolescents and adults with significant physical or psychological disabilities (Law on the Unified Socialist Education System, Gesetz über das einheitliche sozialistische Bildungssystem, 1965, § 19). In theory, special needs education in the GDR was seen as part of general education, only the methodological approach at special needs schools shows some specific differences. For the special needs school system in the GDR, as for all other educational institutions, the 1965 law was binding in all its principles.

The fundamental education policy and legal document for special needs education institutions was Section 19 of the law. This paragraph ensured that special needs schools and special needs education institutions aimed to guarantee education and care for children, adolescents and adults with significant physical or mental disabilities. These institutions cared for the hard-of-hearing and deaf, the visually impaired and the blind, those with speech impediments, as well as those with mental and physical disabilities, behavioural disorders, as well as children and adolescents with chronic illnesses or after hospital stays. This legal basis was later supplemented by the Fifth Implementing Provision to the Law on the Unified Socialist Education System - Special Needs Education System in 1968 (5. Durchführungsbestimmung zum Gesetz über das einheitliche sozialistische Bildungssystem – Sonderschulwesen). The student body was thereby limited: mentally challenged children and young people who were incapable of attending school were accepted into special needs schools. Insofar as they exhibited physical and psychological deficits and disorders that were thought to affect their entire personality, they were thought to only be able to absorb and process general educational content to a limited extent (ebd., 1968, § 3 (1)).

The special needs grades at general special needs schools were categorised into three tiers according to the severity of intellectual disability, with the so-called A-tier for children and adolescents with mild intellectual disability or debility (Debilität), as well as B and C tiers for those with moderate intellectual disability. From the 1970s at the latest, C tiers at special needs schools were dissolved, which resulted predominantly in a grouping of special needs students deemed capable of attending school (bildungsfähig), but also one who was declared incapable of attending school (bildungsunfähig) but eligible for support (förderungsfähig). The group of children and adolescents deemed to possess a severe degree of feeblemindedness or idiocy (Schwachsinnigkeit, Idiotie), the so-called children incapable of attending school as well as ineligible of support (schulbildungsunfähig, förderungsunfähig), was further separated from these two groups. From around the mid-1970s onwards, they were placed in special needs support facilities that were not part of the GDR's education system but a part of the health care sector (see Koch & Koebe, 2019).

As early as 1950, and since the 1960s, the GDR school system increasingly included schools and courses for children and adolescents deemed to be high achieving and with special talents. This corresponded to social and, later, above all, economic interests, namely the special requirements of developing young talent and promoting gifted children (Education Act, 1965, Section 18). As early as 1953/54, special schools for children with athletic talent, the Children's and Youth Sports Schools (Kinder- und Jugendsportschulen, KJS), had been set up based on the Soviet model. They combined lessons and training in a set time order, with modified curricula and political and ideological education. These schools operated all day and were materially much better equipped than the schools within general education; some of them had boarding school facilities. As early as the 1950s, at the latest by the start of the 1952/53 school year, special language classes – so-called R-classes – had been set up at some high schools, which offered extended Russian lessons; a special school for foreign languages was later established in Berlin. Also in the 1950s, an extracurricular music programme for gifted children was set up – the people's music schools, known as music schools from 1961 onwards – that offered special early music lessons for interested and musically talented children. At the end of the 1950s, musical special classes were also set up at selected schools, which led to secondary-school graduation (Abitur) and served as preparation for studying music or training as a professional musician. From 1962 onwards, musically gifted pupils and those with above-average talent could be admitted to one of the four special schools for music (Berlin, Dresden, Weimar, Halle) after passing an aptitude test lasting several days. Furthermore, since the second half of the 1960s, there have been special schools with a focus on mathematics, science and technology for grades 9 to 12. At the end of the GDR, there were a total of 11 of these special schools, and around 10% of all EOS graduates came from the various special talent schools and courses (see Schreier, 1996, p. 292). Even if it must be admitted that these schools did not provide any major inspiration for teaching reforms, the selection and individual or exclusive support of gifted pupils, measured by academic success and the disproportionately high number of doctorates, seem to have been successful (see Geißler, 2012, p. 304).

The GDR term subject teaching methodologies (Fachmethodiken) corresponds to school subject didactics (Fachdidaktik), a term commonly used in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, BRD). The two terms were not systematically differentiated from one another. However, different focal points are evident in the self-designation of various institutional areas. In the GDR, the term didactics was mostly used for conceptual, general didactic statements (cf. Drefenstedt et al., 1976), which were linked to traditions ranging from Radke and Comenius to Marxist-Leninist pedagogy. The focus was on narrowly limiting the term to interdisciplinary principles of teaching and learning in the classroom that were strongly oriented towards personality development (Laabs et al., 1987, p. 82). This was reflected, for example, in the Institute for Didactics of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (Akademie der Pädagogischen Wissenschaften, APW) and in its work on an overarching teaching theory (Malycha, 2008, p. 95). In contrast, subject teaching methodology always referred to a specific subject and was therefore seen not only as a teaching methodology or a practical collection of handouts for lesson planning, but also as a science of the respective subject (Mader, 1959, p. 381).

The term subject teaching methodologies also served as a classification category for the organisation of planning and research in the field of teaching subjects within leading educational institutions of the GDR (DPZI staffing plan, 1951). These institutions were given the objective of providing schooling practice with theoretical foundations and practical instructions for scientific teaching (APW, 1987, p. 255) and thereby ensuring the effective design of teaching and the production of teaching materials and media required for this. Relevant publications from the Soviet Union and independent publications provided orientation points. International trends and concepts derived from transatlantic cooperation were taken up in the reception of related areas of the individual university disciplines, education studies and pedagogical psychology.

Just like didactic research, methodologies specialised in this way were publicly criticised during the Wende (see also transition / transformation) period from 1989 onwards, as they had allowed themselves to be taken over by ideological objectives and dogmatic guidelines (cf. Fuhrmann, 1994, p. 269). In contrast, GDR methodologists emphasise professional and scientific standards in their work as well as their direct obligation to teachers in training.

Teacher training in the GDR was a major political project of the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, SED) and the Ministry of Education (Ministerium für Volksbildung, MfV), and was subject to expansion and reform projects until the end of the 1980s. Roughly two phases can be identified within the phase of institutionalisation of teacher training. Well into the 1950s, teacher training was marked by a newfound orientation that was declaredly democratic and anti-fascist. The shortage of suitable staff caused by denazification measures was initially countered by an implementation of various course systems of the so-called training of new teachers (Neulehrerausbildung), and from the beginning of the 1950s onwards by the development of a differentiated training system. With a series of SED resolutions, the originally ambitious plan, which had envisaged university studies for all teachers and had led to the establishment of pedagogical faculties as early as the 1940s, was abandoned. Instead, teacher training was now based on the Soviet model and the already tiered system of unified schooling. Separate training institutions and curricula were created for teachers of eight-year primary schools. With the prerequisite of a high school diploma, only those teachers intended to advance to teaching at secondary schools (grades 9 to12) were trained at colleges and universities.

The second phase of teacher training began at the end of the 1950s with the passing of the School Act (1959). It continued through the conception of polytechnical schooling, the polytechnical secondary school (POS) and the Law on the Unified Socialist Education System of 1965 (Gesetz über das einheitliche sozialistische Bildungssystem) and into the 1980s (cf. Schmidt, 1986). The training of teachers – who were mostly female – for the lower level of the POS, which was not tied to the Abitur but to eligibility for a POS degree, remained entrusted to the Institute for Teacher Training (Institut für Lehrerbildung, IfL) as in the 1950s. Three-year training of the all-female kindergarten staff at teacher training schools was structured in a similar way to that of the lower-level teachers. 

The changes in the training of teachers for grades 5 to 10 at POS in the 1970s were striking. The Pedagogical Institutes (Pädagogischen Institute, PI) established for this purpose in 1953 were converted into Pedagogical Universities (Pädagogische Hochschulen, PH) with the right to award doctorates. The PH-trained diploma teachers (Diplomlehrer) with teaching authorisation for grades 5 to 12 of the POS and EOS in around 30 combinations of two teaching subjects offered at each location, whereby they were usually only employed at Abitur level after a probation period in the POS. The course lasted eight semesters. The previous five-year model of university training for teachers at highschool level was phased out in favor of the diploma teacher model. In 1982, the diploma teacher course was extended from four to five years. The training continued to be in two subjects, but the previous distinction between major and minor subjects was dropped. The teaching practise, which had previously been limited to the final semester, was given greater importance with the large school internship (großes Schulpraktikum). The internship was to be completed in the second year of study and included classroom observations; it was followed by practical school exercises (Schulpraktische Übungen). The pedagogical and psychological curriculum components were also expanded. There was, however, no systematic introduction to education law. Graduates were only prompted to become knowledgeable about it during their later professional careers and often after the fact.
In teacher training institutions in particular, following institutional tradition, the grouping of students into fixed seminar groups of 20 to 30 people each, which had been introduced at all universities and colleges at the beginning of the 1950s, was pronounced. Each of these groups was supervised by a teacher.

In the Soviet Occupation Zone (Sowjetische Besatzungszone, SBZ), the foundations were laid for the later public education system of the GDR, which was initially based on the Soviet school system, oriented towards Marxism-Leninism, and then increasingly developed independently. After the German Central Administration for Public Education (Deutsche Verwaltung für Volksbildung) was set up in 1945 on the orders of the Soviet Military Administration in Germany (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland, SMAD), intensive work towards a new beginning for the school and education system began. This new beginning after the Second World War referred on the one hand to repairs to school buildings, some of which had been destroyed, and on the other hand to the urgent task of recruiting new teachers and redeveloping previous National Socialist textbooks and methods against the background of denazification (Denazifizierung). The declared goal of education policymaking for this first phase was democratic school reform that would contribute to anti-fascist and truly democratic education and would lay the foundations for a unified democratic school system (see the Joint Appeal by KPD and SPD for Democratic School Reform of 1945, Gemeinsamer Aufruf von KPD und SPD zur demokratischen Schulreform quoted in Baske & Engelbert, 1966, pp. 5-7). The first and second pedagogical congresses also dealt with the democratisation of education and schools (see protocols BArch DR2/2 and DR2/7; see also pedagogical congresses,).

In this first phase of differentiation, the GDR's public education system was divided into kindergarten, elementary school, vocational school, technical school, high school, adult education centres, evening school, preparatory colleges (later the workers' and farmers' faculties, Arbeiter- und Bauernfakultäten), and university and college. Public education initially included all these educational institutions, but also youth welfare, extracurricular education, science, art and culture, radio, and sport institutions. Responsibilities for sport, radio, higher education and technical schools, art, literature, and film were gradually transferred to other bodies in the following years. With the establishment of the Ministry of Public Education in 1950, at the latest, other development issues became the focus of school and education policy. On the one hand, in direct reference to the Soviet system, a stronger unity of ideological education and technical education was now pushed for and this was also promoted through laws and resolutions (cf. Baske, 1998, p. 170ff.). On the other hand, triggered by a decision of the SED, a discussion began regarding the polytechnicisation of education, training and instruction. The German Pedagogical Central Institute (Deutsches Pädagogische Zentralinstitut, DPZI) and the textbook publisher Volk und Wissen, which had a state-monopoly, were subordinate to the Ministry of Education. It therefore also had a significant influence on pedagogical studies and research as well as school/curriculum-related publications.

From the mid-1960s, a phase of greater consolidation and standardisation followed. At the level of educational content, work had been underway since 1964 on a uniform curriculum for all grades and subjects in the ten-year school. At the level of structures, the Law on the Unified Socialist Education System (Gesetz über das einheitliche sozialistische Bildungssystem, 1965) gave this system its differentiated form: it consisted of nurseries (from 1-3 years) and kindergartens (from 3 years until school entry), a ten-year, compulsory polytechnical high school (with lower, middle and upper levels; see also POS). In addition, there were so-called special talent schools for particularly gifted children, as well as special needs schools and special school facilities for mentally or physically impaired children and adolescents. The POS were followed by vocational training facilities, extended high schools leading to university (EOS), engineering and technical schools, and facilities for training and further education for working people. Universities and colleges, in turn, were essentially based on the EOS and vocational training qualifying for a diploma (Berufsausbildung mit Abitur). The Ministry of Education continued to be responsible for reform schools and extracurricular education. Efforts to establish a strong link between school and family education were varied, and those that were particularly successful were those that were able to integrate the mass organisations of the Young Pioneers (Junge Pioniere) and the Free German Youth (Freie Deutsche Jugend, FDJ) into schoolwork.

Following the education policy maxims stability and continuity, structures of the public education system remained relatively stable until the late 1980s. Despite the structural continuity from 1965 to 1980, developments and changes are noticeable not only within pedagogical discourse, but also statistically. For example, the proportion of pupils who completed a ten-year compulsory upper secondary school education rose from 52.7% (1965) to 86.8% (1980). The proportion of EOS graduates in the respective age group rose from 9.1% (1966) to 9.8% (1970) but eventually fell to 7.7% (1980). Due to a general decline in pupil numbers and an increasing number of full-time teachers, the number of pupils per class fell from 27.6 (1965) to 22.6 (1980) at POS and from 26.1 (1965) to 20.4 (1980) at EOS. Although a certain degree of modernisation was observed, such as the inclusion of computer science and computer education in the curriculum or the adoption of new scientific findings, there were no more fundamental reforms until the end of the GDR.

The German term Wende meaning point of transition and ultimately transformation is a term that contemporaries themselves used to describe the fundamental upheaval in the GDR that took place between 1989 and 1990. Between the growing mass demonstrations, the actions of the civil rights and opposition movement, the collapse of the SED's power, the establishment of the round tables (Runde Tische), new elections, the drafting of a constitution - later often referred to collectively as the Peaceful Revolution (Friedliche Revolution) and the increasingly vocal desire for a common German state, a momentous dynamic developed until the so-called new states on the territory of the GDR formally joined the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) finally took place on 3 October 1990. The transformation took place on various levels, the level of the political system and the institutional order but also the level of the living environment and everyday life of the population. This revealed asynchronicities and contradictory (everyday) experiences that extended well beyond 1989/90. The various experiences of upheavals and uncertainties of the people in East Germany and the resulting specific knowledge of them did not always correspond to a simple chronology of political events and the changes in legal and political regulations. Social and political researchers who observed this upheaval at the time and collected various data on it – for example by conducting biographical interviews – spoke of it as a transformation and often meaning the transition to a market economy and democracy. While the historian Philipp Ther referred to a profound and accelerated process that fundamentally changed the economic and political system as well as many different areas of society as a transformative process, which in his view affected many countries in Europe and the former Eastern bloc as a neoliberal transformation – albeit in different ways (cf. Ther 2014, p. 28, in particular pp. 26-40), the contemporary historian Kerstin Brückweh has coined the term a long history of transition/transformation (Lange Geschichte der Wende, Brückweh, 2020). In doing so, she addresses the complex processes of structural re-organisation, different experiences and the changing memories of them. Together with her research group, she made clear that the history of the changes around 1989 goes back a long way and has effects beyond the immediate turning point. A long-term perspective is needed to understand this. In any case, the period between the mid-1970s and around the 2000s should be considered in order to capture as many development aspects and phenomena as possible (Brückweh, Villinger, Zöller, 2020). For the institution of school in particular, it was shown how its long-standing structures and the associated mentalities and ideas of the actors – especially the paradigm of achievement and the idea of meritocracy, which developed in the course of the 19th century – mutually reinforced each other in the face of the challenges posed by the transition / transformation and stabilised school as a living environment, even if the structures of the school system were indeed changed after 1990 and converged with those in the old Federal Republic. The fact that school experiences were not necessarily good, even if memories of school days are positive, is evident not only when looking back at the GDR, but also within a long history of transition/transformation (Zöller, 2020).

Transnational interdependencies are exchange relationships that are organised across borders and that have an impact on local and national contexts. The term transnational encompasses many different forms of connections beyond the sole framework of the nation, such as international, supranational and global relationships. Once the idea of transnational interdependencies had been established in the field of international relations in the 1970s, transnational interdependencies became a preferred subject of social, cultural and historical studies and research from the 1990s. This was an expression of a new attention to processes of crossing political borders in the context of the increasing globalisation of the economy, society and culture. In this sense, interdependencies form not only in situations of contiguity of certain frameworks and contexts, but also as interdependencies between distant territories or units. From a certain density, interdependencies can form the basis for structures such as the 'empire' or the 'socialist community of states' (Sozialistische Staatengemeinschaft). Recent research has shown that not only economic interrelationships, but also social, cultural and educational interdependencies are crucially based on transnational interdependencies.

In the educational policy and pedagogical self-image of the GDR, the term unified schooling refers to a structurally consistent education system from kindergarten to university, which was based on uniform content and ideological principles and laid down in the various laws on schools and education of 1946, 1959 and 1965. This was considered a prerequisite for achieving a basic general education that was the same for all in compulsory school, with the goal of developing comprehensively and harmoniously developed socialist personalities.

Access to higher education in the GDR was determined by academic performance, skills, talents, and social, political and economic criteria, with varying degrees of emphasis and sometimes with serious consequences. The term unified schooling, derived from the tradition of progressive bourgeois educational efforts, testified to the will to insist on uniformity in the content of lessons, for example, without consideration for the individuality of the pupils, and to ignore the school logic of creating difference. Complex practical, and above all, social and economic effects of such an enforced principle of uniformity were largely ignored. The result was the enforcement of uniformity to the detriment of the promotion of talents, individual inclinations and educational interests, accompanied by reluctant educational policy concessions to economic necessities, for example in the form of so-called special schools or optional instruction. In the second half of the GDR's existence, the relationship between uniformity and differentiation was discussed and didactic conclusions were drawn from this in the form of so-called internal differentiation.

"An outstanding result of revolutionary changes in shaping the developed socialist society in the GDR is the formation and education of new, socialist generations of youth. The liberation of youth from the ideological legacy of fascism, from nationalism and chauvinism, and their education in the spirit of socialism and friendship among peoples are among the great historical achievements of the working class, liberated from exploitation, and the other working classes and strata of our country," wrote the authors of the 1988 book "Social structure of the GDR" (p. 329).

According to the GDR's youth law (Jugendgesetz), "[in the German Democratic Republic,] the fundamental goals and interests of society, state, and youth are convergent. Led by the German socialist unity party, the working class, all other working people, and youth have created the state of workers and peasants. Together, they are shaping the German Democratic Republic, their socialist fatherland" (Preamble to the GDR's youth law of 1974).

Belonging to the youth, despite all its social differentiation (Autorenkollektiv, 1988, p. 339), meant being part of the "state youth" (Staatsjugend, Werner, 2018, p. 83). In a narrower sense, youth included the generation of adolescents between the ages of 14 and 25 (Autorenkollektiv, 1988, pp. 331, 328). Most joined the Free German Youth (Freie Deutsche Jugend, FDJ), where they were to be trained as "the party's fighting reserve" (Ohse, 2009, p. 76). Everyday youth work was closely linked to school. It was about the "constant, all-round support and comprehensive inclusion [of youth as a whole] in the further shaping of the developed socialist society." Young people were considered "active participants in shaping the developed socialist society" (Autorenkollektiv, 1988, pp. 329, 336).

Parallel to the state youth desired by the German socialist unity party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, SED), there were various youth cultural movements within the GDR at all times (not necessarily excluding identity as state youth): in the 1950s, the scene of the Halbstarke (verbatim: half-strongs) and Jazzers; in the 1960s, the beat and rock 'n' roll movement as well as a continued Halbstarke movement (Mey 2018, p. 9); in the 1960s and 1970s, the Kunden (verbatim: customers), Typen (verbatim: guys), Gammler (verbatim: slackers), Rockers, and Blues-Fans (Werner 2018, p. 86f.); in the 1980s, the Punker (verbatim: punks), Heavy Metallers, Poppers, Rockers, Grufties (derived from the German word for tomb, similar to goths), Wavers, Skinheads, and HipHoppers (Bundesstiftung für Aufarbeitung, 2024). Scene affiliation in the GDR was fluid – often equivalent to West German movements. It was about young people searching for identity, nonconformism, going out and partying, meeting like-minded people and listening to music, but potentially also about standing out in public with their appearance. However, only a few young people displayed behaviour that was opposed to the system, as the risk of being punished or even imprisoned was too great (Werner, 2018, p. 85ff.). Youth (culture) was reflected in state policy, and the aforementioned scenes were frequently monitored by the state security service (Staatssicherheit). Time and again, young people rejected SED policies and FDJ activities. At various points in time, the government adjusted its approach to young people. In 1961, for example, the SED established a youth communiqué to address the interests and needs of young people. The world festival of youth and students (Weltfestspiele der Jugend und Studenten) was held at irregular intervals, the radio station DT64 was founded in 1964, and the Germany youth meeting (Deutschlandtreffen der Jugend) was organised. Starting in the 1980s, the FDJ organised various concerts featuring pop and rock stars from West Germany, Great Britain, and the United States (see Skyba, 2022). The aim was always to win young people over to the state, to offer them age-appropriate activities, but also to keep them in check.

Adolescence is considered a liminal phase between childhood and adulthood. In modern societies, adolescents largely make the transition from youth to adulthood independently. At the same time, elements of classic initiation rituals are always present in how transitions are undergone (Friebertshäuser, 2009, p. 188). Within the GDR, a formal youth inauguration ceremony (Jugendweihe) was a central instance of socialisation.

The ceremony was introduced in 1954 with great propaganda effort as a declaration of allegiance to the state and its ideology (Kauke-Keçeci, 2002, p. 212). It was implemented within a very short time. In 1955, only 17.7 percent of each age cohort participated; by 1961, this figure had risen to 90.3 percent; and by 1989 to almost 98 percent of all adolescents (cf. ibid.; Bickelhaupt, 2015). The proportion of those who attended confirmation decreased over time, although there were always those who participated in the ceremony as well as confirmation, those who only participated in the Christian profession of faith, and a few who did not participate in any of the youth rites.

Since its introduction, the ceremony had been "an important component of the anti-church education system in the spirit of the SED (German Socialist Unity Party, Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands) and was in direct competition with confirmation. The pledge became an oath of allegiance to the state" (Brunotte, 1999, p. 144). In the spring of each year, after a year of preparation for the ceremony, eighth graders gathered in cultural centres and theatres in formal evening attire and were then called to take the stage to pledge their allegiance to the SED state and its policies. At the ceremony, the ten commandments for the new socialist man („10 Gebote für den neuen sozialistischen Menschen"), first proclaimed by Walter Ulbricht on July 10, 1958, at the fifth SED party congress, were read aloud. During the ceremony, each commandment was read out individually and ritually confirmed in chorus by the eighth-graders with “Yes, we pledge to that” (German: „Ja, das geloben wir.“, denigrated from: „Ja. Das globen wir.“, denigrated to “Yes, we believe that“ in dialect). They were thereby required to always work for the international solidarity of the working class and all working people, "as well as for the unbreakable bond between all socialist countries" (first commandment), "to live cleanly and decently and to respect one’s family" (ninth commandment), or "to practice solidarity with the peoples fighting for their national liberation and defending their national independence" (tenth commandment). After the pledge, each participant on stage received a certificate adorned with carnations, along with a booklet made specifically for the ceremony (Jugendweiheschrift) with various differing titles, including “Universe Earth Humanity” („Weltall Erde Mensch”, from 1965), “The Meaning of Our Life” („Von Sinn unseres Lebens”, from 1983), and “Socialism – Your World” („Der Sozialismus – Deine Welt”, from 1974). The contents of the books changed over time and were adapted to current developments. However, they always focused on the presentation of a comprehensive system of nature and society based on the Marxist-Leninist model (Wolle, 2005).

Most participants remember above all the family celebrations and the numerous cash gifts they received, which they used to buy things like their first Simson or a double cassette deck (see Lehmann, 2022). Within the GDR, the formal youth inauguration ceremony was thus a festive initiation that marked the socialist transition to adulthood.