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.