In the USA, most high schools across the country are not teaching geometric proofs. Schools that teach geometric proofs, spend more time on direct proofs than indirect proofs. Why is this topic not so important anymore?
(1) Proofs do not have any immediately practical use so the people who want education to be job preparation see no need for it. The fact that learning how to put together a logical argument is a skill that is useful both on and off the job escapes such people.
(2) Probably more important is the fact that proofs in geometry meeting modern standards of mathematical rigor involve subtleties that only people who have thought deeply about mathematics perceive. Because Euclid does not meet modern (meaning post-1800) standards of rigor, we do not teach Euclid, but then we do not teach Hilbert or Bourbaki (except to college math majors) either. We present mathematics to high school students as simply arguments from authority.