Yes, I, too, "in my youth", was greatly confused about what kind of numbers "algebraic" numbers could be, if they were not expressible in terms of radicals! :)
No, one's high school teachers would most likely not be able to explain the difference...
So, yes, the obvious question "but, wait, if they're not expressible in radicals, in what sense are they 'algebraic'?" deserves an answer... which is that "it turns out" that there are roots of polynomial equations not expressible in terms of radicals. Who knew? But they're still characterized by purely algebraic means (just not quite expressions in terms of radicals).
In the 19th century, and into the 20th, there was considerable interest in determining what "new" operations, beyond root-taking, would be necessary to express solutions to polynomial equations. The "Tschirnhausen transformations" showed that there was some meaningful reduction. In the late 19th, Klein (and others) showed that modular forms could express solutions of quintics. In the 20th, people realized that, similarly, Siegel automorphic forms (connected to the Jacobian variety of an algebraic curve attached to a polynomial) could express the solution of an arbitrary polynomial. (See Mumford's three volumes "On Theta"... or similar title.)
(And, in the 20th, we did also see that elliptic functions, and so on, can express Hilbert class fields of certain number fields. Work of Shimura, et al. And then there are Stark's conjectures about generation of fields...)