Forgive me for saying so, but it seems you are looking for a map/guidebook or litmus test, not for a way to look at the world experientially, directly. It's not enough to know how to read; you also must know how to "read in-between the lines."
Much of the foundations of learning involve rote activities, such things as learning how to count, memorizing the multiplication tables, adding new words to one's vocabulary, memorizing Latin declension rules, being able to give dates for critical historical events and their sequence over time, etc., etc.
But a scientific theory -- not less evolutionary theory -- is not that sort of thing. It is an abstraction from the foundational stuff, tried and true we expect (hope). It is not a rote activity with all problems settled (or at least in the main outline) before the kids' little butts even hit their desk chairs, whereupon you can bore them silly with inane, doctrinal drivel, rather than engage their curiosity and their minds by teaching science (biology) from its first principles. Which means more emphasis on foundational concepts, and more opportunities for direct experiments, and much less "spoon-feeding" of the currently received doctrine.
By so doing, you are telling them their minds, their reasoning ability is superfluous. You are instructing them that just saying the right mantras will get you ahead in life....
[And then people wonder why so many kids drop out of school.]
But then, inevitably that might get you into the "teaching the controversy" problem; and, not only is that wildly unpopular with the status quo, but practically speaking you couldn't find many teachers today actually able/qualified to teach such a course.
I hate to say it, but there really are public school teachers out there who aren't terribly bright. That's why such folk major in "pedagogy" in the teachers' colleges, not in actual subjects like science, or literature, or history, or mathematics, or what have you.
The teacher's-college-style education degree is effectively a degree in pedagogy -- class (or school) management and the strategies of "effective teaching." Which is why such folks stick to the Teacher Guide like flies on blistering tarpaper, slavishly following the prescibed course syllabus to the letter. In too many cases they are unknowledgeable in the very subject area and course content they purport teach.
Plus it's worth remembering that the First Amendment says that "preaching" in the public schools is unconstitutional anyway. To me, "preaching" and "indoctrination" are synomyms, mutually exchangeable terms....
Well them be my thoughts anyhoot. best wishes, bb.
Exactly what happened in my sone Bio class last year. They spent some time on evolution, less than a week, and as they covered it, the teacher told them that he was going to teach them what they needed to know to pass the regents test. He told them that he didn't care if it made sense to them or not or whether they thought it was right or not, if the kids didn't put down these answers, they would get marked wrong on the test. So the point was, don't think for yourself, it'll only get you in trouble with your grade on the regents if you reach a different conclusion from the results that they want to hear.
Thank God in Jesus Christ that the Way out of such darkness is available to all, and by grace I am in it!