I strongly disagree, it is definitely the teachers and advocates of FP which are lacking.
There are plenty of programs and libraries written in "imperative" languages like Python with lots of functional style applied. That should be the starting point, not sermonizing about whether a monad can even be defined with English words.
Haskell is particularly, egregiously bad for this.
None of the concepts are particularly complex. They're unfamiliar, sort of, but they're not insanely obscure.
But then there's the labelling. If an ordinary for-loop was called a yarborough and a function call a demicurry it really wouldn't help with the learning.
I realise the concepts are supposed to map[1] to category theory, but category theory stole words like monad from elsewhere anyway.
That is somewhat true, but in practice, not really so.
Imagine you're a Chinese programmer. Obviously a lot of open source documentation is in English, so you have to learn basic English anyways (I'm bilingual from an early age, but most people struggle if they start the process even in their teens).
Then you see English-speaking programmers talking about yarborough and demicurry as if they were English words. Now you're majorly confused. Worse, an encyclopedia of philosphy tells you that it means something (see eg. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#MonWorPhe ) What's the actual connection? When you ask, people casually tell you to read up on category theory, which is apparently something they teach to advanced Math majors. Remember we're struggling to learn basic English here!!!
Tangent: what I like about (the) Haskell (ecosystem) is that most often you'll find the exact right tool for a job.
Eg: in Python you get `dict` ... In Haskell you get very specialized versions of you need them. Do you have integers as keys? `IntMap` is your friend. Hash able keys? `HashMap`! Don't know anything about your keys except for it a key is different from another? You still functions that tread a list of tuples as a map.
There are plenty of programs and libraries written in "imperative" languages like Python with lots of functional style applied. That should be the starting point, not sermonizing about whether a monad can even be defined with English words.