Canada had this debate about 20 years ago. The flight safety data was conclusive. Almost all inadvertent spins occurred at an altitude that would likely not allow a recovery even if proper spin recovery control inputs were used. Instead the emphasis was placed on teaching stall recognition and recovery and the result has been a decrease in spin accidents.
I think Canada has hit the right balance. For the PPL a spin and spin recovery must be demonstrated to the student pre-solo. It is recommended that it be demonstrated in a scenario that starts with a botched stall recovery.
For CPL's a spin recovery must be demonstrated on the CPL flight test. However the examiner is expected to call for recovery within the first half turn after the aircraft departs. The intent is that recovery begins immediately after recognition that the aircraft will enter a spin if recovery is not immediately initiated.
The place for spin training is in a basic aerobatic course, which in a perfect world everybody would take after their PPL. For most aircraft to get to a place where the proper spin recovery technique must be applied requires pro-spin controls to held in for at least 1 full turn and often 2 full turns. This is negative training as outside of aerobatic flying there is no situation where you would want to apply and maintain pro spin controls.
If the airplane is not allowed to stall in can't spin. If you do inadvertently stall then if yaw is controlled the aircraft can't spin. THAT is the lesson you want to teach in ab initio training.