When right-wing ideologue Kevin Donnelly was appointed to co-chair a review of the national curriculum many braced themselves for a reignition of the culture wars.

This was a man, after all, who complained that in English "literary classics are on the same footing as SMS messages, graffiti and movie posters", who had called for the Bible to be taught in state schools and who said many parents would consider the sexual practices of gays "decidedly unnatural".

"The cultural left has taken the long march through the education system and enforced its biased, ideological world view on schools," Donnelly once opined.

Academics frothed at the mouth at his appointment: more than 170 educators signed an open letter of protest to Education Minister Christopher Pyne.

All the signs pointed to politically motivated curriculum carnage. "It will be like a small atom bomb going off," one curriculum specialist predicted in the Good Weekend.

But the response to the review has been somewhat miraculous: there is broad consensus.

The review echoes the plaints of teachers, principals and parents across the country that the curriculum - especially in primary school - is ridiculously overcrowded.

It says the national curriculum is "manifestly deficient" in its accommodation of the needs of students with a disability.

It points out the obvious: it is not really feasible to embed the so-called "cross-curriculum priorities" - engagement with Asia, sustainability and indigenous histories and cultures - into every subject.

And it suggests the somewhat woolly "general capabilities" - critical and creative thinking, personal and social capability, ethical understanding and intercultural understanding - should only be taught where appropriate.

Punters hoping for a bloody battle between the loopy left and the rancorous right will be sorely disappointed.

There is no reprise of the heady days of the history wars when Julie Bishop, then minister for education, suggested left-wing ideologues had hijacked the curriculum.

Indeed, the report eschews inflammatory or polemical language.

The reviewers accept the Australian curriculum is a "general improvement on previous attempts".

In calling for a more "balanced" curriculum, the report suggests the curriculums for geography, history and science privilege inquiry-based learning, where students pursue projects in their own areas of interest.

While warning that caution should be exercised not to rely solely on inquiry-based learning at the expense of essential knowledge and explicit teaching, the reviewers are at pains to stress they are not suggesting there is no place for it in the classroom.

The big surprise was the kick in the teeth to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.

The review suggested there was a conflict of interest in the body that developed the national curriculum also being responsible for reviewing it.

It went further, suggesting the often parochial political and policy positions of the states, who are represented on ACARA's board, had compromised the quality of the national curriculum.

The Abbott government has announced a review of ACARA.

Watch this space: the states' role in education could become further eroded if they lose their representation on the board.