You know, I disagree with you that ID is inherently unscientific. Although it is usually just a cover for religious fundamentalists, there is still a falsifiable hypothesis in there somewhere. If it is approached scientifically I think ID can be perfectly sound science. Of course, the ID hypothesis might not last to long if it is subjected to real science, but that is yet to be determined. I don't really think there is much ID science at all, so to my mind the jury is still out.
But even at our most charitable, you're right, ID is not yet a science. At worst, it is pseudoscience. Either way, it is situated on the fringes of real science, and certainly doesn't belong in a primary or secondary science class. We should be teaching our kids established science. I never hear anybody whine that the steady state theory isn't given equal treatment as the big bang theory.