The Abbott government's controversial review of the national curriculum has failed to reignite the culture wars as expected with its recommendations receiving widespread support across the country.

The review's primary finding - that the curriculum is overcrowded, especially in the primary school years - was backed by the federal Opposition, principals, Catholic and independent schools and the Victorian government.

The contentious "cross-curriculum priorities", which require sustainability, Australia's engagement with Asia, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures to be "embedded" in every subject, should only be taught where relevant, the review said.

And it said the Australian Curriculum was "manifestly deficient" in its accommodation of students with a disability.

Other key recommendations of the review include:

A more explicit focus on literacy and numeracy in the early years of primary school;

A greater focus on phonics when teaching reading and the Western canon of literature;

A greater focus on Western civilisation and Australia's Judeo-Christian heritage in the history curriculum;

A more rigorous mathematics curriculum modelled on that taught in Japan;

Four of the "general capabilities" – critical and creative thinking, personal and social capability, ethical understanding and intercultural understanding –should no longer be taught across the whole curriculum.

The review became mired in controversy when the Abbott government appointed education consultant Kevin Donnelly – an outspoken critic of what he saw as the left-wing ideology taught in classrooms – to co-chair the review with academic Ken Wiltshire in a move widely seen as politically motivated.

However even federal opposition education spokeswoman Kate Ellis – who earlier this year described some of Dr Donnelly's views as "extremely offensive, dangerous and extreme" – said many of the review findings were "pretty straight forward".

Ms Ellis said she had received feedback from the education community for some time that the primary school curriculum was overcrowded and that it was "common sense" to only apply the cross-curriculum priorities where they were educationally relevant.

She believed Dr Donnelly and Mr Witshire had "been pulled back" from more extreme recommendations over the course of the review.

Victorian Education Minister Martin Dixon said the review reflected concerns that the curriculum was overcrowded and the "woolliness and lack of clarity" around how so-called cross-curriculum priorities should be integrated into every subject.

Science and maths teachers had questioned whether it was appropriate to teach themes such as "engagement with Asia" within their disciplines.

"They just don't fit in some subjects – it's like trying to fit square pegs in round holes," Mr Dixon said.

The report said there was concern about the seemingly political determination of these three "priorities" ... and a fear that changes of political persuasion could lead to constant changes in the priorities.

The president of the NSW Board of Studies, Tom Alegounarias, said NSW would consult with teachers and principals before implementing any changes to the state's curricula.

"Our view is that any change has to be proportionate to the benefits of the change – otherwise you cause unnecessary disruption to teachers and students.

"We will listen to what schools and principals tell us."

Australian Secondary Principals Association executive director Rob Nairn and Australian Primary Principals Association president Norm Hart welcomed the focus on the overcrowded curriculum.

However, Mr Nairn said he would be disappointed if the general capabilities were watered down because these gave children the skills to learn.

National Catholic Education Commission executive director Ross Fox said the curriculum review was a "considered document" that deserved "careful consideration".

"The appropriate recognition of the importance of the Judaeo-Christian heritage of Australia is welcomed by Catholic education," he said.

The Australian Education Union did not criticise most of the substance of the report, but argued it was a distraction from the Abbott government's "abandonment" of the Gonski funding reforms.

"No change to the curriculum will address the gaps in funding and achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged schools," said president Angelo Gavrielatos.

The review made 30 recommendations to improve the curriculum.

"There is no doubt that the issue that has caused the greatest amount of angst is the amount of content teachers are required to teach," the review said.

"So much mandatory content is included that some argued it was taking up more than the total teaching time available in a school year."

The review said this was impacting on the time available for co-curricular activities and for religious schools to imbue the curriculum with their own values and beliefs.

Jann Robinson, chairwoman of the NSW branch of the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia, said "all of us" would agree the curriculum was overcrowded.

"My staff have been working to implement it, but that is one of the things they've probably said the most about it," she said.

The government said it would resolve the overcrowded curriculum, improve engagement with parents (possibly by creating a smaller "parent-friendly" version of the national curriculum), "rebalance" the curriculum, better support the needs of students with a disability and review the role of the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority.

Education Minister Christopher Pyne said Australia's educational performance would fall behind unless most of the review's recommendations were adopted.

He acknowledged he would have to work closely with the states – which own and operate schools – to implement the recommendations.

"There's nothing in it that I can see that the states and territories would baulk at because nothing is trying to drive a political agenda.

"I don't get the sense that this is an ideological document and I don't feel the national curriculum is an ideological document."

The review received almost 1600 public submissions and held consultations with 72 organisations and eight individuals.