I know you haven’t. But if you follow these debates, you know that many have.
I would not push “teach the controversy”, either. I would push for the evolutionary unit to be moved up to a higher grade, so that evolution could be taught at a more sophisticated level, by students who have not only basic biology but more math, physics and chemistry under their belts. (This action would also have the social benefit of ending the pointless and wasteful debate over evolution in the schools, for reasons I’ve explained to Daniel elsewhere here.)
I would agree with this, in a world where epistemological fairness reigned, but given that some people in the debate (both atheist and TE/EC) have defined science so that it cannot in principle allow design inferences, to those people, the quality or amount of ID research wouldn’t matter at all. Every bit of ID research, when it came to clinching the argument, would draw inferences about life which such people would say aren’t “scientific” but “philosophical” and therefore could never be admitted into the science curriculum.