This sentence is interpreted as a counterfactual one in my workbook. I mean it's interpretation is like 1."There is no school genuinely concerned about students' welfare, so if there were such one, it would understand..." In this case, "which is" had better be "which were" to convey hypothetical nuance.
But can't it be interpreted as 2? I think "would" in this case was used as a less blunt way of saying, not a conditional-related "would". Please tell me your opinon.
2. "It's possible there can be a school genuinely concerned about students' welfare and it would understand..."
pp96)For elementary schoolchildren, recess is just as important as science or math class. However, many schools across the nation aren't giving students enough opportunity to play outside. A school which is genuinely concerned about the welfare of its students would understand the importance of recess. Kids learn about teamwork and sportsmanship when they play together. In my opinion, all the tests in the world couldn't teach a child social skills as well as an hour of recess each day. Schools are already cutting physical education classes. This makes it even more essential that out children have the chance to be physically active during the school day.