With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In any event, we find it questionable whether the school district has even preserved this issue for our review. The denial of a motion to dismiss by itself is not a final and appealable order but, rather, is an interlocutory order not appealable under any of the exceptions set forth in Rule 307. In re Petition of Filippelli, 207 Ill. App. 3d 813, 817-18 (1990); Rosinia v. Gusmano, 90 Ill. App. 3d 882, 886-87 (1980). “Rule 307 allows only the review of the order from which a party takes an appeal, and such an appeal does not open the door to a general review of all orders entered by the trial court up to the date of the order that is appealed.” In re Petition of Filippelli, 207 Ill. App. 3d at 818; but see Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center v. Berlin, 268 Ill. App. 3d 184, 187 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Here, the denial of the school district’s

A: holding that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context
B: holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo
C: holding that the proper scope of the review under rule 307 is to review any prior error that bears directly upon the question of whether the order on appeal was proper
D: holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review
C.