Replies seem to indicate an unfounded fear of stall practice as a training sequence. There are still pilots around who were fortunate to have flown wartime types where certification rules to make aircraft safer had not been introduced. Some of these could be quite unsettling in stall behaviour (the Australian Wirraway was just one example) and unintentional spins could occur if stall recovery was mis-handled.
For this reason the original 3000 ft height limit for recovery from aerobatics was introduced into civilian aero clubs post war because these aircraft were still around. Times have changed since 1945 and apart from the occasional poorly maintained training aircraft the certification process has steadily improved making stalling a non-event. All current modern training aircraft are so reluctant to stall it takes more handling skill to force the aircraft to stall than it takes to recover. The tail wagging the dog, so to speak.
The current `rules` on minimum heights for stall practice coupled with a CASA directed requirement to force a wing drop by unnatural means if necessary, are archaic and rather quaint. A blast from the past?
In contrast, the gliding fraternity are not so hidebound and stall practice is frequently done at circuit height. Keeping in mind that a glider has no engine power to help recovery so the nose must be lowered to gain safe flying speed. Even then height loss is barely 100 feet.