I think if schools are going to address the progression of life on Earth they should use the current scientific theories, so yes. If ID ever becomes a scientific theory it should be mentioned as well. But things that are just hypothese should not be mentioned as the equivalent to theories, otherwise people could start making up any old story they want.
(And this is the problem in other subjects in classes ... liberals can say communism works, despite facts to the contrary ... science classes, on the other hand, would like their theories to try to fit the facts a little better.)
But I'll add the caveat that I do believe all good science teachers should, after presenting current scientific theories, advise their students to examine the theories critically, and prove otherwise if that's not the case.
I wish those on the ID side of this argument would see that their biggest problem in arguing their side in the scientific community is that they DON'T in many cases have a strong grasp of scientific terminology or the actual current theory of evolution.
To argue strongly against the theory of evolution, you first need a strong idea of what the theory is! Heck, when I was in school, I was taught protons and electrons were as small as things got ... that's been shown to be otherwise since, but if I didn't know what protons and electrons even were, how could I hope to even grasp the idea of SMALLER particles?
How do you falsify a theory that life evolved undirected?