I think you're on the right track, mostly. I can try to add some detail/clarification.

> 1) you emitted a single photon, there is a high probability that photon would be detected by the detector.

Yeah, more or less -- the probability depends on the coefficient of reflection of the surface of the glass. It could be high, or low, depending on the angle and refractive index of the glass, and will match the classical calculation of the relative amplitudes of transmitted and reflected waves (Fresnel equations), because fundamentally, the photon wavefunction is obeying pretty much the same wave propagation laws. Note you only get this behaviour if the photon wavefunction spatial extent (typically many photon wavelengths) means that it has the possibility to interact with many identical atoms which are spaced in a uniform way (relative to the wavelength of the photon). This is mostly true for optical wavelengths hitting normal materials (typical atom spacing 0.1nm, optical wavelength 500nm, any random variation is too small to be "seen" by a photon) but is not necessarily true at shorter wavelengths like X-rays, or if your "glass" is only a few atoms big. Those scenarios are more complicated and you don't always end up with the "normal" ray optics rules after summing those probabilities.

The only real difference to the classical wave picture is in the moment of detection -- instead of measuring a classical wave, with some part reflected and some transmitted, we are set up for a discrete, quantum mechanical interaction in the detector. A 1 or a 0. This collapses* the wavefunction according to the probabilities mentioned before, to either interact with the detector (and so we say the photon was transmitted and then absorbed in the detector) or not (and here we can say the photon was reflected).

> 2) ... However, because they are all part of a wavefront, none of them would be emitted out the sides of the transparent material?

You can hopefully see how the previous explanation scales up to emitting many photons, the numbers of photons detected will match the probability calculations. But to address your last sentence -- in this toy example, I assumed that there was no internal absorption or scattering inside the glass. In such a case, the original+scattered wavefunctions sum up such that the only possibilities are transmission straight through or reflection right at the interface, and there is no chance for a "random" photon to emerge out of the side of the glass at some angle. This isn't to do with photons being "part of a wavefront", unless I misunderstand you. More fundamentally, photons are waves; or at least, they travel in the same ways that classical waves do, and waves moving through a uniform medium don't just randomly scatter.

Now if we make things a bit more realistic -- the glass is not going to be a perfect crystal, and the uniform background of atoms assumption is not going to be exactly true. There will now be a small possibility of the wavefunction scattering differently off some imperfection in the atomic structure. Because it's associated with an imperfection, this part of the wavefunction won't be cancelled out by all the neighbouring scattered amplitudes, and you will end up with a real (but small) probability to have a photon emerging out of the side of the glass in some random direction, in addition to the main probabilities of transmission or reflection at the surfaces.

* "The measurement problem", or what exactly wave-function collapse really means physically, is a very thorny issue to which there isn't a good answer. But we know that mathematically, it works.